Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC743A1412; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:10:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=ElOEvG9E; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=ECfJYYYf
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FhWxGR6Kw7W1; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2FC3A1410; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:10:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4480; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1606918242; x=1608127842; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=nvcoPGD+TlyyxbOH44+W99/Lt83r+5duD3dlMkCT2qU=; b=ElOEvG9EP05O624cXBvYJoSaBqzy5GeH6lh0LHQdYQ0J9TTpt5kGQCKh 78bPC3qX6I4uRc+BYkI9qtfES1zeICkJPEGprw6izbZY0QFsWuitvscGI 0KKbG+v92rSuqbjzJcijmWx2PTAtOWhClqQY20D94LwmGP1SSeJtexRxH M=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DLCABcnsdf/5JdJa1iHgEBCxIMQIFEC4FSUQeBUC8uh?= =?us-ascii?q?DyDSAONXIoXjnGCUwNUCwEBAQ0BAS0CBAEBhEoCF4F9AiU3Bg4CAwEBAQMCA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBHGFYQyFcgEBAQQSEREMAQEpDgELBgEIEQMBAgMCJgIEH?= =?us-ascii?q?xEVCAoEAQ0FGweDBIJWAy4BoggCgTyIaXaBMoMEAQEFhRwNC4IQCYEOKoJzg?= =?us-ascii?q?3aBBoVRG4FBP4ERJxyCVT6CG4U6M4Isk0MBPqQjVwqCcpYchRcDH4MhiiGUY?= =?us-ascii?q?pNyjX2OaIQwAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFsJIFXcBU7KgGCPlAXAg2OIYNxilh0NwIGA?= =?us-ascii?q?QkBAQMJfJACAQE?=
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AD4EdJRBaZkqGS4f9EulQUyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9p?= =?us-ascii?q?ssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qw00g3JQIzE5vMCgO3T4OjsWm0FtJCGtn1KMJlBTA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMhshemQs8SNWEBkv2IL+PDWQ6Ec1OWUUj8yS9Nk5YS8bjbkLfozu56jtBUh?= =?us-ascii?q?n6PBB+c+LyHIOahs+r1ue0rpvUZQgAhDe0bb5oahusqgCEvcgNiowkIaE0mR?= =?us-ascii?q?Y=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,386,1599523200"; d="scan'208";a="600147329"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Dec 2020 14:10:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0B2EAKuF029878 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:10:20 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 08:10:19 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:10:18 -0500
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 08:10:18 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=RbdX8/puRVq4DiPHrXa5Ryj+NNnxn0k5eQSZSb9vSHNocNCn46ptYhpFug+Zj0tv4gvijuZD3ZI0mQmKFuILD5P1GBQBT8usiYx7lamagcJdXSdNiPm9NnJWLQx3Fq8oKLG2e08QvbTDCGeJMBsJbfc9CUzBr3Ol6kjeCaSDaICfUquGQZtYIzzcOB2dNE2Ew0wtcl/UIHtoJgfY2crPLCAO1jTuNhmz8+upfhjwro7VhA2vwscrt7ztBtSdaiUmaL7YuAjkvTuagoGMZhUAQ9Nwltrp/YoLWjkK4TaSYPuGy/rT552PRSmR0EWIDWC08IVjorninaGMDP/bHg+r4Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nvcoPGD+TlyyxbOH44+W99/Lt83r+5duD3dlMkCT2qU=; b=RoYBZ7ei3s7qvZV7TgxxWN73awCFUNtGWbfqxMOE+hrKJiP4U4l6Lxw1Jn+BVdapxqHE6lx7p0alf1JPwwgu0V00987XsyJ2+H0RZRAZuCoIkwQwcKUTu11A6+CjCFzge90TlAqow0nG1kNCMe+OVJaTh1MpEqRXLIvfcqOOXWhcioStAjs3vFuGSLwDxgck8pstGs529zDLfBMndnlkv8fWZtLuu/tiQ7nTPMyEt1R6z7XCCmPAMnPSKQuEgfu4IJM5i1OafmgZBU6mhBs/ArwYVz+224Tkeks7knI3QX2e61Kwdb3gYeZ39vB/gUtXg0cfIuLGy95LDsHA3EU6nw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nvcoPGD+TlyyxbOH44+W99/Lt83r+5duD3dlMkCT2qU=; b=ECfJYYYf9XR8+pao069J86us+V/YtWg1JPM3FSx1euk5IvY3+fxuaGb0ipJ45WrNQUn0XC4U/XJGAkpBET/CKT8gX58jVTef1romPB6pclCWpaR8mvYV3QDJzSiSTyVLspgsyO1Pog5m3opdfOdbcBFMe11xxIAPciq8Gf8gUmU=
Received: from PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:42::21) by PH0PR11MB5175.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:3d::8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3632.18; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:10:17 +0000
Received: from PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::453b:b2f5:ec29:410d]) by PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::453b:b2f5:ec29:410d%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3611.025; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:10:17 +0000
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
CC: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements <draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
Thread-Index: AQHWyKPhRHLDAc8CjUaOLwEQ20u7VQ==
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:10:17 +0000
Message-ID: <BC4EE20F-5E49-4A70-A534-F629AACB0FD4@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.43.20110804
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;huawei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c1:36:959a:92d8:2b8e:d99a]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a09c2103-314a-4635-13e5-08d896cbff0e
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: PH0PR11MB5175:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <PH0PR11MB5175C1BCA09853A7956FEB00A9F30@PH0PR11MB5175.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: A12AUQ8bRk1jn72MLYQb5ORPKOqmTLJJ0d42z3kzoPHDVlK+vtJoWKQRuD0E7C3rKUXfERXYTBvsrLu50GqNjlDekzFMjBRaY3RjZjKM/SGddT1iRQ56vGZhxV90NSOlDUi/jip92kRTfJC/v/ce1pchNz3DnOiENxlZaEE+j76E4p06KTswFRUXDvmsbnn0kb/1OvLUuf68sj2jyT+BQfOo20/7q8ZRzKp1QR6b9IpF1aE9rN8Vy77ntQ3fmVbkxqshhFmxkajLmQF/y9VpXixgXHqcYad1fdGUhaZVuf+OhMg46/CO+ZgB9kOP5xlOKufOck8ILO1yp6tzABULshM7RIpRTXWYNBQoet5eodOaF+/MUHVZJCRha2xlM8HK
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(366004)(396003)(376002)(136003)(346002)(39860400002)(316002)(83380400001)(36756003)(4326008)(6486002)(66574015)(33656002)(91956017)(66946007)(478600001)(66446008)(66476007)(66556008)(6512007)(64756008)(54906003)(8936002)(110136005)(8676002)(5660300002)(71200400001)(2906002)(86362001)(186003)(76116006)(2616005)(6506007)(53546011)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?B?Umt5T0lKaWpha0hqVTIrZkVXeFRmQ3VuMVB6Zm5laitzYmJsNHlPWm0yd1RW?= =?utf-8?B?Mlh6eVVGZENQS3B1TXBFWlRtcXV5aFY4a0NaYUgwMEVTVWpSWEFjWTFYNGhD?= =?utf-8?B?b21MS1VJSXRNQzE1ZkJIdXVxWFVoMWlqb2h2cHNsSHlDZ2JIaWFTbXZKWnNM?= =?utf-8?B?T3YrT09HZVo0eHA0aU0wMmtyUzVDSDVQRlc0SkpzeUQ3RTZLZDlrY0FiR01j?= =?utf-8?B?RXZYcmxBdEFCcnNmZjlkYW5xNDR0RnIzZFpFSVBzeCtET0hpYThRcUVCVGp0?= =?utf-8?B?dnJGQXBNcXRLU3prRDFFM0VkQnhqTWozS0NTT0RDdVF3SFZrT25kUzVHVTAz?= =?utf-8?B?SjM2ZXhVc2ZITGlKdFVESWgydHB3dGdtMklLRDRFTTBXY1ZRdVdJVFpIOHps?= =?utf-8?B?OWZJWVlWZ2JPdTFLcjB6TXgzS25rTWRZVnZ1UzVMU0didk4rUWh6WE1MRmht?= =?utf-8?B?YjhNdjJldFNOWEFaTUVMR2V6NFc4UklmZVN6dDhBSzY3MWllVDFDOHBUd2tW?= =?utf-8?B?UmxneEsxc1YzKzBDVmRsNWFUOW01UnpFR2lOR2hMK0pMWEFXWW1WbmF4blF4?= =?utf-8?B?bGZ6NjZJdytIeXFQZDhWL0w1dzhHaE5VeG1sS1pIa3hBTlluTkIwYzRSY1ZY?= =?utf-8?B?ZFA4MGxzdjQySGNRVTRUMXVJbWRRdkdhcytmQnhQME9PeXJRckRUclR2TE1w?= =?utf-8?B?cHBPYnBvVEJTMHp5TUQ0cnhoRDJ4ci8vd1ZvWDNNUjk4NmNHSWN0ZDNUS1JK?= =?utf-8?B?czk3TzhVeUsybGloQ3BNblVxdjJKZWF1V1ZNVTRLenpUMG5tcm9HM1BqOHFT?= =?utf-8?B?M3N3WmxvY0FKWDFRbTFvMDQzL1hadUh5eTJyVVlQYzJZVzhNejQ3T3I4NlIy?= =?utf-8?B?QW94SUZZUDB2TGNobWRSdEVZZzBDbTNBYVdzcmM2aFNpTXRURlNnUDVGQzR2?= =?utf-8?B?STE5TFA2OUFVNnRGVXdBZUEyL1dXWHlHMWlJVnBJaUVJQWgyTk9jaEljYVg0?= =?utf-8?B?TFdrQzRyQmdKM2FTVnlHcWR2ZFZxQUZuNVFqY1B1NlVBaHpPbURIMk9rd1E0?= =?utf-8?B?NC90cXhDSTJabkErU2tRVEpKa1dqRitpandnelpQblNkd2N6bVYvdUlrTTAy?= =?utf-8?B?LytBdzhtZWdleE5zRVR2WUJ3Wk5mUGtUVGVLN0laMURQWXpLVHo4UlRjalQr?= =?utf-8?B?Q3hkaDBPczY0am5aSUs0ZkNHc1BvZ1NvbDlDQmxnY0NrdkhjRGR6OFY3KzZV?= =?utf-8?B?SUlOd1FXNE9oVWtLN2pKTHFIalNObG9SaXQ3d1FqSitHZjJ6TU9yS1pPSWFZ?= =?utf-8?B?VEtDL0V3aXVMSXp6cG03bVFIenJCNlAvZ3gvV3EvME9kTXhNQmZMM3l5VHZ6?= =?utf-8?B?WjdYY0toSXkrMUc3ODBCQWRmR1ZTcTVudis4bTd1UllRcGlEWUtFcVVoSGFK?= =?utf-8?Q?mqHZ6Pha?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B2A306FADE626F429065BC26B7AD7980@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a09c2103-314a-4635-13e5-08d896cbff0e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Dec 2020 14:10:17.3748 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: MGp3NQa+H98pXifjy3+jm43QTHsciiJmQR7V/6v7CMXjJwrF7d1GpiXEdnSLpAEr6YNqvhhaGJP/oXBNHP6gGg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH0PR11MB5175
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/3qOKjAOEwGA6kYRr6a2EEtN1li8>
Subject: Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 14:10:46 -0000

Zhaohui (Jeffrey) contacted me last week about the Geng's point #2 as I was one of the people raising the comment during IETF-108 6MAN session while wearing *no hat*. Please also note that I am *not* a BIER expert and not a member of the BIER list.

Here is my reply to Zhaohui:

EV> First, please note that my comment at IETF-108 was without any AD hat and that Erik Kline is the responsible AD for 6MAN.

EV> Then, please note that the current state of IPv6 extension headers is that no new extension header (HE) may be specified 
EV> but the door is wide open to add options into existing EH  (e.g., in hop-by-hop options or destination options headers).

EV> HEs are followed by either another EH or by a transport layer header or by 'no more EH'. While a transport 
EV> header is followed by an 'application' payload: TCP payload, ICMP payload, GRE/IPinIP encapsulated packet (that could be of course  also BIER payload).

EV> IF the IPv6 packets are sent with a destination address that is NOT the next BIER router AND 
EV> IF the intermediate routers must process the BIER header, then a BIER option in the Hop-by-Hop extension header sounds more suitable to me.

EV> If the IPv6 packets are sent with a destination address that is the next BIER router, 
EV> then this BIER over IPv6 looks more like a GRE/IP-in-IP to me, this means BIER not as extension header 
EV> but more like a 'transport' header (pretty much like GRE or IP-in-IP). Else, a destination option header may also fit.

EV> After reviewing the slides that you presented at IETF-108, you were right by asking for a 'protocol number' but, to be pedantic, 
EV> this is not an extension header but rather a 'transport' header. It will also have the added benefit to work with the legacy IPv4 protocol. 
EV> The alternative would be an option for the destination options header.  So, based on the BIER WG/authors' choice, the relevant WGs are 
EV> either 6MAN (to add a destination/HbH option) or INTAREA (to request a protocol number).

The last sentence above is with my IESG hat though ;-)

Hope this clarifies

-éric


-----Original Message-----
From: "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com>
Date: Saturday, 28 November 2020 at 03:05
To: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>om>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>rg>, "EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>cn>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>om>, draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements <draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09

    Hi Greg,

    I have followed the thread. And I don't there is consensus about BIER IPv6 requirement and BIERin6 in WG. Here are some my concerns that have been discussed in IETF109:
    1. Why we need a new "next header" when the existing IPv6 extension header could satisfy the BIER IPv6 requirement;
    2. The comments raised by 6MAN WG and INT area are not addressed, which requests the document to be discussed in transport area;
    3. BIERin6 is not an independent solution which uses BIER Ethernet when BFR nodes are connected directly.

    Best
    Xuesong