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

Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Wed, 25 November 2020 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.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 6708B3A14E7 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:44:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 BOfm5SkY0Jm8 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:44:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 046063A14D7 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:44:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id z5so3353036ejp.4 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:44:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=9k4Pmu1u1KGk2djwYSuEkOWeII5GB8O49I3Upje2qD0=; b=ZubO3x8SbSLzBpqDIplTiCo/MeNzljGBL9BFjn5VHIWuo0SRNUbkMgF4MkYETiL0SA g6j7Yn9+8YHEUnExEZJLxt8TcP7Glilyf9gfJl72dzQr+pAK/d9uVILvqwHmp5SbkLJ7 YTB/CPB4uUt5qBantcfXgnnsjTm//ULPRZEF1mssIoZDl6u+MWdnnY/fCkir86qebj8/ iRFTCnYlbJ1+NLmFZS+hmeWyZjRJGYA2zgIpZ4Kev34Yru5vosqCKyn6HdUe+M7NK9TY lLyJnd7dj/ucbrz0ofcwyonIjcYjBqmctDBhW0I5G/CMKy/eTQP5+4jJsuiNVszNX8sP famA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9k4Pmu1u1KGk2djwYSuEkOWeII5GB8O49I3Upje2qD0=; b=ZmtI2CSzqYr+MoqlRS+fdpqEykSZtjxjHjB9LIVwzpslyFMGAsBdFRZzDT/N0sp2rw ch3fZUZ0eT10PHEP4fPoa7swf5YLe6kctbLspFS3z2o8Oti7gzE51CO+h4QDnLUywS/a yMT8M4HfdCIKaY/FwRNdNkD4KTL8i6mNGweFJgQptCJObuY8kCMeF0GCFAwlIts8jvpi cYmwOEG2NN001C5RlR9qbzjaV9FpZDweqOyQKfDBIN5O2MChvl5Wyiz2+JofMDJjx6MV lqvAZzQDs8oD5NqlfTh9p3xvWX79ZyHjYk5z9HOFugFPsROhN6vJET42Ps7wnMeHJU75 DAIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532gu+NdrlKL2tav5CqRA9xYQ4F4bFIbefpEVyLGHyMfFB5wejXd IKvIZjajo3aUKha3v3M4kPLepotLxmsRSA5dLrY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqMQwmvmCv+eSndlJDyDSZM6Lis+eFMqWnDnUk+jrHgNp8g0pP7ISBdiwEzVDlbSdyoa9ORkH4Hn1Iz6FBjDg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:8058:: with SMTP id x24mr3584706ejw.272.1606315495340; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:44:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d518b2ac16a2468e8aa80bf77d0bc5d9@huawei.com> <CABFReBrz+to4JPRxZzAykTbPyvsX=axMHhv2a5rghetnt9jNrg@mail.gmail.com> <368c96a825734b7e958e0c3f0af649f8@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <368c96a825734b7e958e0c3f0af649f8@huawei.com>
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:44:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CABFReBqFbQfvhiDLcyofDj2NhaW+9cxqqB3gZRsc5AVqqSOstg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Cc: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007f3ef405b4ef78d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/6pi4g7acZJa9aj1DEoJoLkYStFQ>
Subject: Re: [Bier] What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the requirements? //RE: 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, 25 Nov 2020 14:44:59 -0000

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>et>; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>rg>;
> 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>om>; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>rg>;
> EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>cn>; Tony Przygienda <
> tonysietf@gmail.com>gt;; draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements <
> draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>gt;; 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
>
>