assume any combinations to just work without being specified.
Thx,
Ice.
Jeffrey
From: BIER [mailto:bier-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IJsbrand Wijnands
(iwijnand)
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:40 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net<mailto:zzh...@juniper.net&g
Ice: No, BART is not being slaved here. If BARM is 0, BART is all yours.
Zzh> BART is BIER’s no matter what BARM is; not only when BARM is 0.
Ice: Yes, sorry, I agree, BART is always BIER and BARM is always IGP.
Ice: What I meant to clarify is that BART is not slaved to BARM (IGP) and v.s.,
Inline.
Future specifications may specify BART values that change the
interpretation of the BARM octet. Those specifications must handle backwards
ICE: This creates a potential dependency which I think we should avoid. I think
there are possible use-cases where the combination of the two
Hi Jeffrey,
> When I said I prefer Option B earlier, I was actually referring to something
> similar to what was discussed below between Eric and Arkadiy, though with
> some differences.
ICE: Yes, I think this proposal has merit and a possible consensus for those
who prefer to align with IGP
Tony,
> Now, what BAR registry would give us is a "layering of constraints" if you
> want, i.e. BAR=1 (since this is a very tanglible example, another one would
> be max. degree of fanout or things like max-label-depth e.g.) would take
> care of the BIER specific constraints without IGP
t;that's nice".
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:15 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <i...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Alia,
>
> > An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in the
> > title.
> >
> > If it so
ve them, you
> are more than capable of representing them
> accurately.
>
>
> So Option E seems best to me.
>
>
> That was not part of my listed options.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
>
> From: BIER [mailto:bier-
Alia,
> An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in the title.
>
> If it sounded like the IANA registry was suggested as separate for BIER OSPF
> and BIER ISIS, then your attempt to reframe the conversation might be
> reasonable. Let me clarify - I see no current
argument!
Hope this clarifies,
Thx,
Ice.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <i...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Alia,
>
> There is one more option that I think is not fully covered from the choice of
> options related to getting a
Hi Alia,
There is one more option that I think is not fully covered from the choice of
options related to getting a registry.
The topic of the discussion is what information we need to pass in the IGP in
order for BIER to select the correct underlay. What identifies the underlay is
really
Alia,
> Please tell that to Tony, its not me who started that discussion.
>
> Tony is BIER WG Chair. Managing the draft authors and different perspectives
> is part of his role.
Nice twist/try!
> BUT changes to WG drafts are based upon transparent mailing list discussion -
> so all are
11 matches
Mail list logo
