Hi Acee,
Thanks for the comments.
The ordering is not by SD, but SI.
The text below this example says the following:
"The first label in the range could correspond to SI 0, and the second to SI 1."
The “key” for the Label range is {SD, BSL}, and the index into the range is SI.
So in the example below you see a Label range of 4 labels (L1-L4) for {0,256},
2 labels (L5-L6) for {0,512}, etc….
Does that clarify it?
Thx,
Ice.
> On 19 Jun 2017, at 03:12, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I’m not saying they that BSL 256 and 512 bit strings would share any labels.
> What I’m saying is that the OSPF encoding (didn’t look at IS-IS) doesn’t
> allow them to share the same label range yet the example in the MPLS
> encapsulation draft implies that they are interleaved by SD in the same label
> range. Here is the second example:
>
>
> L1: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0.
>
> L2: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1.
>
> L3: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2.
>
> L4: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3.
>
> L5: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0.
>
> L6: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1.
>
> L7: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 0.
>
> L8: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 1.
>
> L9: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 2.
>
> L10: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 3.
>
> L11: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 512, SI 0.
>
> L12: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 512, SI 1.
>
> Note that they are ordered by SD – not BSL. However, that the OSPF encoding
> is BSL specific. So, a label range would only include the SD/SI labels for a
> single BSL.
>
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Type | Length |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |Lbl Range Size | Label Range Base |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | BS Length | Reserved |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> I think the example should be updated to match the protocol encoding.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM
> To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>
> Cc: "gjs...@gmail.com" <gjs...@gmail.com>, "b...@ietf.org" <b...@ietf.org>,
> OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
>
> Acee, can you refer to more specific section in
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt ? I don't
> think that it is assumed that BSL 256 and 512 in the same subdomain would
> ever share labels ... I sent the conceptual model on the AD review for
> -architecture that all drafts follow (as far I understood/helped writing
> them) ...
>
> --- tony
>
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Greg, Authors,
>
> I support publication. Also, I have two comments.
>
> 1. It is somewhat strange to make protocol drafts standards track while
> the architecture and encapsulations are experimental.
> 2. The OSPF encoding will not support the second example in
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt. In this
> example, the BSL 256 and 512 are intermixed. While with the encoding, they
> would need to be two separate ranges of labels.
>
> I also have some editorial comments but I’ll just pass them to the authors.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: BIER <bier-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Shepherd
> <gjs...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "gjs...@gmail.com" <gjs...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:34 PM
> To: "b...@ietf.org" <b...@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
>
> BIER, OSPF
>
> At BIER WG meeting, IETF97 in Chicago, we decided to move forward to WGLC for
> some of our docs. We learned that even once published the IESG has a process
> to change the track of the RFC if the WG makes the case to move the work from
> Informational to Standards track. The feedback from operators is that RFC
> status was more important than track, and we won't be able to meet our
> charter requirements to change track without deployment experience and
> operator support.
>
> This email starts a two week timer for feedback on the draft:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions/
>
> WGLC to run in parallel in both BIER and OSPF WGs due to the scope of the
> work.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
> (BIER Chairs)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> b...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>
>
>
>
> --
> We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the
> complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is
> not true.
> —Robert Wilensky
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> b...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
