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

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

All

I would like to thank the Greg, Tony and Alvaro on their pointers and
guidance this morning to help move the ball forward with the requirements
draft.

What I heard from Greg which rang out loud and clear and I mentioned to the
requirements authors that today we have BIER MPLS where the BIER header is
encoded into MPLS label stack layer 2 1/2 and we also have non MPLS BIER
Ethernet ether type 0xAB37.

So why do we need non MPLS BIER encapsulation in an IPV6 environment as
that IPv6 environment can be supported by non MPLS BIER Ethernet.  The case
and point here is that eventually just as ATM and Frame Relay now live in
the technology graveyard so will at some point in time as SRv6 matures will
become the end all be all “core transport” mechanism for all operators.  So
that being said we need a another encapsulation method to carry BIER , and
per RFC 8296 that gap is filled with Non MPLS BIER Ethernet encapsulation
today which will work for future SRv6 transport once MPLS goes by the
wayside.

At the beginning of the presentation Greg corrected me and stated that that
after the BIERin6 independent model draft was published, that the
requirement draft came about to build a set of requirements as to the “why”
we need BIER to work in a non MPLS BIER in an IPv6 environment when we
already have the BIER Ethernet encapsulation that fits the bill and works.

So that’s the million $$ question we are trying to solve here with the
requirements draft.


As for the IPV6 6MAN questions, I was brought on board by Mike McBride as
the IPv6 SME as well as multicast SME - but point being member of 6MAN for
many years so a go between liaison with 6MAN related to any questions
regarding following the IPV6 specification for extension header usage per
RFC 8200.  Both solutions drafts had been reviewed by myself and 6MAN and
no technical issues were found regarding the solutions.

Alvaro mentioned as far as the list of requirements that they were fairly
basic but maybe needed some more meat behind it such as the “support
various L2 link types” but we did not specify.  In previous versions we
stated L2 agnostic and then switched to various but being vague on which
L2.  Alvaro also mentioned why OAM should be a requirement.  We may want to
add a sentence on justification as to why we picked BIER IPv6 requirements
as required versus optional.

We need to add some more meat in the introduction or maybe even a separate
section as to what gap is being filled by non MPLS BIER in IPv6 environment
using IPv6 encapsulation and encoding the BIER header versus Non MPLS BIER
Ethernet.  Also maybe use the requirements section to see if a new
requirement that maybe a gap that is not covered by non MPLS BIER Ethernet
that can be covered by non MPLS BIER in an IPv6 environment.

At the end of the call when we rolled through the last two drafts and went
into overtime I heard the ask for call for adoption for BIERin6 independent
model.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-bier-bierin6/

I would not think we are ready to adopt any non MPLS BIER in IPV6
environment solution if we still do not have the requirements set as to the
gap that is being filed and problem being solved that cannot be done today
with non MPLS BIER Ethernet.

The flip side of the comment above is that if we are ready to adopt and we
decided we can skip answering the “why” questions, so then do we need the
requirements draft at all if that’s the case as we have made the decision
to go with a single solution and are closing the door on any other
options.  If the latter then we hang tight on any adoption of any solution
and wait till the requirements draft is completed and adopted followed by
moving forward with adopting any solutions.

Kind Regards

Gyan


-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD