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

> > 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

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

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

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

+1 obviously ... On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > Hi Acee, > > Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate and agree with the perspective. > > Regards, > Alia > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: > >> Hi Alia, >>

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

Hi Acee, Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate and agree with the perspective. Regards, Alia On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Alia, > I support Peter's position on the draft. While I believe at 8 bit space is > more than enough to support

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

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:56 AM, wrote: > Alia, > > ... > > It sort of Option-B but allow more independence between BAR(BUAM) from IGP > Algo, which personally attracts me since one cannot screw up another one > and at the same time complement each other as

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

Hi Alia, I support Peter's position on the draft. While I believe at 8 bit space is more than enough to support variations of the BIER algorithm for the foreseeable future, I think reaching consensus is more critical than the precise encoding. Thanks, Acee On 2/20/18, 12:28 PM, "Isis-wg on

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

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:25 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote: > 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

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

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

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

> > BAR = 0 SPF, subtype can be FlexAlgo, any other IGP metric or constraint > or even an IGP registry value, this is a unicast computation > BAR = 1 SPF without BIER routers, subtype can be FlexAlgo, any other IGP > metric or constraint specification, this is a unicast computation > BAR = X (some

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

Alia, We have absolutely concrete requirement to support BEIR over IGP Algorithm (including Flex Algo). As such Option- E have been the most viable approach for me. However, based on continues discussions and in my view unsubstantiated/aspiring requirements in regards to define its own

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

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: > Hi Alia, > > 1. I see a benefit in having the BIER a way to map to any of the IGP > algorithms. Simply because IGPs already provide paths to all nodes in the > domain and BIER can simply use these paths instead of

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

Hi Alia, 1. I see a benefit in having the BIER a way to map to any of the IGP algorithms. Simply because IGPs already provide paths to all nodes in the domain and BIER can simply use these paths instead of computing its own. 2. Not sure if people plan to deploy the BIER in a model where it

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

> > From an architectural view, the idea of having the IGP/routing layer have > to understand > BIER specifics seems an undesirable coupling. > very much so, in stark terms one could say that IGP is BIER signalling while the fact that we use SPF to perform BIER nexthop calculations is a

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

Thanks for the feedback. There is one additional aspect here that I think needs further clarification and discussion. In the current proposed charter, the first work-item says "Operation of BIER in non-congruent topologies, i.e. topologies where not all routers are BIER capable can also be

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

all the implementations I am aware off can adjust to Option A) with BAR registry without problems, neither do I see a problem with option B) given we are talking only 0/0 being in IGP RFC @ this point in time. thanks. tony On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >

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

Alia, As per below i am not aware of a commercial deployment. Some implementation assume ability to use BIER specific algorithm. So if we keep 8 bits only, the IANA registry needs to allow that. The registry being suggested as an option on the list will not allow BIER specific option ( and