[speaking as WG participant wearing no hats] Hi Les,
Regarding your inquiry about the implementation of RFC 7883/7884: * Nokia SR OS has implemented Automated Distribution of S-BFD Discriminators starting from Release 20.5.R1. This release introduces the automated S-BFD discriminator distribution with IGP protocol extensions as defined by RFC 7883 for IS-IS and RFC 7884 for OSPF. * I am aware of several successful implementations that are currently using this technology extension without any issues. G/ From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 7:15 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Bier] Re: Call for review for draft-ietf-bier-bfd CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Folks – I apologize for the lateness of my comments – I don’t consistently track BIER WG. Some of what I say below would certainly have been more beneficial if provided earlier. Nevertheless.. Regarding the proposal for new IGP Extensions for advertising BIER BFD information: I am troubled at the idea of having the IGP advertise information which includes the BIER Bit-String representing the relevant BFR-IDs. This string (defined in RFC 8296) can potentially be up to 4K bits (512 bytes) long. This is a lot of information for the IGPs to carry – and is particularly troublesome for IS-IS where it exceeds the carrying capacity of a single TLV (max 255 bytes). As a more minor point, the presence of the RESERVED field is inappropriate for IS-IS. This is commonly done in OSPF to preserve 4 byte field alignment, but this is useless in IS-IS and only serves to bloat the TLV size unnecessarily. In a larger context, the only previous use of the IGPs to advertise BFD discriminators that I am aware of was done in support of S-BFD (RFC 7883). To my knowledge, implementations have not made use of this extension – perhaps in part because assignment of discriminators based on information in an IGP database has not proved appealing – which calls into question why we should do this here. NOTE: I am happy to hear feedback from others that RFC 7883 is in fact being used. Finally, I ask whether any implementation of this draft – even as a POC – has been done? If so, what has been learned? In general, I am concerned that in the absence of implementation experience we may be standardizing things prematurely. Thanx for listening to my very late remarks. Les From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:25 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Bier] Call for review for draft-ietf-bier-bfd Hi, The draft-ietf-bier-bfd passed last call in BIER WG. We'd like to get more review in BFD WG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bfd/ Comments and suggestion welcomed, please send your comments before 9th, July. And please volunteer if you want to be the shepherd of this draft. Thank you! Best regards, Sandy
