Re: [Bier] What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the requirements? //RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09

Comment in the thread please. Platitudes do not help move the discussion.

Shep

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:01 PM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
wrote:

> Why do you want to stop valid comments and valid discussions?
>
> I think both Gyan and Jingrong just raised the key technique points.
>
> Bier in 6 is just a wrong solution and direction.
>
>
>
> Tianran
>
>
>
> *From:* BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shepherd
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:16 PM
> *To:* Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>;
> Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bier] What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the
> requirements? //RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
>
>
>
> Please try to keep comments on track and in-line with the thread.
> Stand-alone questions like this are just digging up ground we've already
> sowed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shep
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:27 PM Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <
> xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> (to make clean, raise a new topic)
>
> I am confused too by the claiming a solution can do everything and it is
> an "existing" solution, while requesting allocation of IPv6 Next Header /
> IPv4 Protocol value which is non-trivial.
>
> We need to know, what does *the* BIERin6 draft propose, and how does *the*
> BIERin6 draft satisfy the bier-ipv6-requirements.
> Take req-1 as an example, suppose there are PPP-over-SONET(POS, RFC2615)
> links in an IPv6 network, can the existing RFC8296 solve ? What does *the*
> BIERin6 draft propose to solve ?
>
> Please note in my question the word *the* does not include anything that
> RFC8296 can solve. Any existing RFC8296 solution is not belonging to *the*
> BIERin6 proposal. Please tell us *the* BIERin6 proposal.
>
> Thanks
> Jingrong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gyan Mishra [mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 9:34 AM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>
> Cc: 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>; gjshep@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
>
> Jeffrey
>
> About the two lingering points it does shed light on something that has
> been disturbing me with the BIERin6 solution.
>
>
> I thought about this some more and I think what creates a lot of confusion
> in my mind with BIERin6 solution is the L2/tunnel component.
>
> As the main reason is that the L2/tunnel exists today with RFC 8296 “Non
> MPLS BIER Ethernet” with the special allocated next header code point to
> account for BIER next header 0xAB37.
>
> I honestly think the L2 should be removed from the BIERin6 draft so that
> the optional IPV6 encapsulation is no longer “optional” in the draft as
> that now is the draft.
>
> This also provides the “IPv6 encapsulation” commonality with BIERv6 at
> least showing clearly that their is a strive for commonality and parity
> between the two solutions.
>
> Also the “muddying” of the water is eliminated by removing L2 making the
> solution crystal clear to operators.
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Gyan
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>
>