Re: [bess] [Bier] [pim] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05

"Mahesh Sivakumar (masivaku)" <> Wed, 21 June 2017 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCE7128D44; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id olp9BZmwo1td; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2A1128D8B; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3856; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498064921; x=1499274521; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=imBAZUI9IcetiXxo+IwIw+6VH3JdlOWTYuTvIfnlcxw=; b=UW9es+gXjrXtUBYK8yGlg4LKFdXQpehQ4X8r3bvxJal53UTqVHrz7mgq PR/2ExbwfByZVNpCifmIm7gdt4bR4vkjNaHpmcCMpmMvxA/+eS9rccRKy cYt1jzEGQTLYE37u//RfnHhMkGR3UsjZXUuEutVHnIRUiB2r8u4/iPhCj k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,369,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="263791461"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Jun 2017 17:08:40 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5LH8e22022958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:08:40 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:08:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:08:39 -0500
From: "Mahesh Sivakumar (masivaku)" <>
To: Eric C Rosen <>, Stig Venaas <>, Greg Shepherd <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] [pim] [bess] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05
Thread-Index: AQHS5VnHIn0kuMWFf0mxetPBKfBaUqItFIIAgAK90ID//6OAgA==
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:08:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.15.1.160411
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] [Bier] [pim] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:08:47 -0000

Hi Eric,

>> For BIER, I was thinking that the BFR-Prefix of the egress PE should
>> appear in the "originating router's IP address" field of the Leaf A-D 
>> NLRI.  However, it is probably better to allow the "originating router's 
>> IP address" to be different than the BFR-Prefix, and in that case to use 
>> the Leaf A-D route's PTA to specify the BFR-Prefix.

I was thinking along the same lines so that we have the flexibility on the
Ingress BFR to use either the originating router or the BFR prefix while
But do you envision a real use case at the ingress BFIR for using the BFR prefix
in the PTA given that the BFIR can use the originating router IP address to
match the appropriate S-PMSI A-D route.
Accordingly, should we make the BIER-pfx in the PTA optional?


On 6/21/17, 8:39 AM, "BIER on behalf of Eric C Rosen" < on behalf of> wrote:

>Stig, thanks for your comments.+
>On 6/19/2017 5:47 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
>> Hi
>> I think this draft is mostly ready. I just have a couple of comments.
>> In section 1:
>>     This revision of the document does not specify the procedures
>>     necessary to support MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM.  Those
>>     procedures will be added in a future revision.
>> Remove this text?
>We'll probably just change this to something like "Procedures to support 
>MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM are outside the scope of this 
>> Section 2.1.  MPLS Label
>> Should one use different labels to distinguish address families in the same VRF?
>Nice catch.  The customer's address family is identified by the AFI of 
>the MCAST-VPN routes.  There should be a requirement that a given router 
>MUST NOT originate two x-PMSI A-D routes with different AFIs but with 
>the same upstream-assigned label in their respective PTAs.
>> The PTA must be present in Leaf A-D routes so one can know the BIER
>> prefix of the router joining. It might be obvious, but I think it is
>> worth pointing it out. It is specified for IR (in RFC 7988 section
>> 4.1.1 it says: "Leaf A-D route MUST also contain a PTA"...
>For IR, the PTA is needed because each egress PE needs to advertise a 
>downstream-assigned label.
>For BIER, I was thinking that the BFR-Prefix of the egress PE should 
>appear in the "originating router's IP address" field of the Leaf A-D 
>NLRI.  However, it is probably better to allow the "originating router's 
>IP address" to be different than the BFR-Prefix, and in that case to use 
>the Leaf A-D route's PTA to specify the BFR-Prefix.

>BIER mailing list