Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

To make it absolutely clear using an example: even with it is still that the two fields are independent of each other. This particular combination means “apply BART 1” to “Flexible-Algo 200”, where “Flexible-Algo 200” could be “exclude red links”, while “BART 1” could be “skip BIER incapable

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

Jeffrey, To make it absolutely clear using an example: even with it is still that the two fields are independent of each other. This particular combination means “apply BART 1” to “Flexible-Algo 200”, where “Flexible-Algo 200” could be “exclude red links”, while “BART 1” could be “skip BIER

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

First, I greatly appreciate the rapid education I have gotten on why the different aspects of this are important. Let us explore some details on the plan for an 8-bit BART and an 8-bit BARM that are independent. Jeffrey, I really appreciate your bringing this option to the list. It simplifies

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

Hi Jeffrey, Yes, I was rushing & may have mangled the terminology in the final bit. The routing layer 8-bit field can be from the IGP Algorithm registry. Thanks for catching it & for your willingness to write this up more clearly! Regards, Aka On Feb 21, 2018 10:05 AM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui)

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

Hi Alia, Thanks for articulating it very clearly, and bring out the issue of having a clear specification on the interaction. I need one clarification from you though – is it possible that the you actually meant BART when you said BARM, and vice versa, in the following? --

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

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.,

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

Hi Ice, From: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) [mailto:iwijn...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:16 AM To: Tony Przygienda Cc: IJsbrand Wijnands ; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; ext-arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

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