Re: [Bier] Comment on BIER-TE

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 09 August 2017 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 B9203132445 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qaLyE7zpaRhB for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A243A132339 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:77]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD8858C4E3; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 23:18:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 155BCB0C835; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 23:18:53 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 23:18:53 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>, bier@ietf.org, hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn
Message-ID: <20170809211853.GE29311@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <201708021139076906483@zte.com.cn> <20170808170859.GA24983@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <35E854C1-69F6-442D-8C18-A57C85F4F977@cisco.com> <20170809170340.GA29311@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <B6546AF4-A454-47BF-AF14-7A17BA6A3999@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWyT47ofQewbOe2kkyCMi5F7TnYw+MN6BOfhDRsh_KEkA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmWyT47ofQewbOe2kkyCMi5F7TnYw+MN6BOfhDRsh_KEkA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/68DsMCU2brR5D0HJLwxtrzVuy0E>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Comment on BIER-TE
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 09 Aug 2017 21:19:01 -0000

Greg:

I think that the use-cases for BIER-TE are pretty clear:
It is at least the same ones as the ones SR has for steering traffic,
just for multicast traffic. On top of it, it also allows easy
controller define live-live multicast without having to bring in
complex new routing protocol like MRT into the network (live-live
is rarely a unicast requirement, so this is where multicast
requirements will be more than typical unicast).

The goals of the designs are also clear: It is designed to provide an 
evolution from RSVP-TE/P2MP for multicast with the same goals as the
evolution from RSVP-TE/P2P to SR. Aka: like SR for unicast, it provides
for multicast traffic engineering in a comparable lightweight 
signaling and state fashion as SR using the principle concepts of
BIER and expanding its architecture.

Of coure, SR is now a more inclusive framework also supporting other
functions, but i am not relating to those.

If any of this is not clear enough to you from the current draft
text, i am happy to improve this according to above text or more
detailed. Pls. let me know.

Cheers
    Toerless


On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:29:15PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Toerless, Ice, et. al,
> I think that we arrived to realization that it may be helpful first to
> formulate the problem, requirements towards TE at BIER layer, if any.
> 
> Ice,
> we may have slightly different terminology in using 'topology', but you've
> captured my message - traffic engineering, as well as protection, may be
> better achieved in BIER's underlay, i.e. transport network. And segment
> routing with MPLS dataplane may fit the bill. Whether one uses distributed
> control plane or central controller, e.g. PCE - secondary issue.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:51 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toerless,
> >
> > > Now if you want to use traffic-engineering ("path engineering")
> > > to do steiner trees, IGP topologies will not help. If you want
> > > to do N-path load-splitting, you need N topologies, etc. pp.
> > > "Your mileage will vary" ;-)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Thx,
> >
> > Ice.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BIER mailing list
> > BIER@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> >

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de