Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 18:10 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 1A5C63A1512 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 10:10:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.586 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] 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 CYZ6hRiQ-C48 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 10:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 E17D63A1426 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 10:10:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id u2so1554444pls.10 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:10:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=thLn2R9s+yeuimbXHmv5pLA5pqY5XawIlU1CqgGuopQ=; b=rsMnAn2c6cKRviaT8gfInuZdSYHwTk3NJTUfCtHAtB+6GXl9KPp6QWdDccjxCXK8JW UAWV9WO3rk/Xj9UbcPdXWgaIm7DU6ecnscgRzBLki9TuP4fylbCZR/6S9+YSkFGVcz2R 8hBbpipclwb1NGFOGnrXCCLTyPdlxRN25GVOhPi0D1nMoDPfyOUR+pkoq88h2YZUiPDv 2UXz2LdsugmHef9bxwTGWO/05pizmQczqwnzwgeLeIP+WB7sgoR9MWlqThFkY8ZiZR2s x6FesZvlG07MZPK2NpIHlBobiBDYpCJesGxh8yGeL74yxGZn6ab4BP8TZYx2a+YwIIU2 q+vA==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=thLn2R9s+yeuimbXHmv5pLA5pqY5XawIlU1CqgGuopQ=; b=cuNrJxmNOaBhIxi5817am02Vl1xXSNkKgEwDu3nP+vDAvjFEm6YI8JDTM5DttVkVRe 6zVXqjnTmG1WAEQDZb2yjomBk3mDtk3w6kIkgUv3f9xRmMkFWcwho9uCI0fRo25Cn5ev gJcd8u1wDk+6pogvI9G9UZbmINIWyLrt8zAWHjfMQ9IKT2K6KQVXXb+hIa83hPAjdmQO 8HA4zzNx/sFxQgGtS05vaSxV91dfhdGiMC6OgUY6yhtfIAxRYwk13zPG7eH5DunmzM2B KisQGeegQttpHaiHgQIf1kTtMV0pGy0fQmbqd888PlA9OjU9ac6DAQ7anrL7wWYfZv0L w8AA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306xDGroU/0L87eZ5S4UPndZMeuAFIgpYPqmDoFm1O0NubZ5/9k oAk2Uuj5oE78ahxhdjeh8AL2fdRxPGtHz5fg6Po=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsd4F9gQaTdXFonyyeOSAojPSyQeRH8zGGsxAzGDnXbRT9+bA8QPH5zr75HrY0gpY/W9LIe4miKOXx66IvRtI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:178b:: with SMTP id q11mr1022799pja.132.1606932612102; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:10:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV0aZRqXP2wAweEktsibTYpHqHhDB9OTPkO+1JmyOb7-gA@mail.gmail.com> <CABFReBoFMZwcPrROMB=RbE60TsP4uajUERbE7MVTQD9AjwJ4ag@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3zOqmSetuB92M=8pFFgGmEyq3KvVWat87WfDoBH4j3bg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB598132918AFF529C955B15D3D4FE0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV2KOCHCAnFG0P-9V9g4rsz4e=aZ1WEcNSR6bTLW9OCO_A@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB5981922D4BDC641F5CF3CD20D4FD0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV1NXz8NrEvP3GYLz2PKkGNOU__D7XOOZ6_tbM03xPcNSg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB5981824AF7424761E656D36ED4FD0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV2nzBK7YDqBHrAt_3zAZiA7VDJmw-R=wOqTet6QS=Rg0g@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB5981AEC2E508A34919BBCE6AD4FC0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV100P14rkQjqt-uNHLhcZCow6n2TL4CxReotkzVX=z-4g@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB5981E2599B59F35B6F880345D4FC0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV25Aj3yQsa171+u=uVZ8fW5n8jWf2RyR_E1BcfZRfM9Pw@mail.gmail.com> <CABFReBoPR_KN66hh9s09AtHg5PVKJjKp7Uew6mV3Fe=nafj3MQ@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR13MB2582AB90BCAFB158A69CBDA1F4F70@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR05MB5981B2030531A3ADFC987F50D4F70@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <00b201d6c70b$0618bae0$124a30a0$@olddog.co.uk> <BYAPR13MB25822591DB260C852F583AD3F4F50@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR13MB25822591DB260C852F583AD3F4F50@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:10:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2W-LuiwTB8=cmh5ft9a6OOkOWQLAxARDk21nY69PkL9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>, Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085c00c05b57f279b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/8sUA_ZfeoQyIGojPu0vl6s7voJw>
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 18:10:16 -0000
+1 ..from Adrian & Mike So how about this? - BIER has a history of starting with Experimental work and seeing how it develops - This deployment case is somewhat niche: multicast is a bit rare, BIER is not widely deployed for multicast, IPv6 is still (sadly) not ubiquitous, bridging over IPv6 is a subset of BIER. - Why not adopt both approaches as Experimental and set some clear terms for the experiment? On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 2:05 PM Michael McBride < michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote: > - Why not adopt both approaches as Experimental and set some clear terms > for the experiment? > > This! > > mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:22 AM > To: 'Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang' <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> > Cc: 'BIER WG' <bier@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 > > Hey Jeffrey, > > It may be because I'm late to the discussion, but when you say... > > > With the above, there is simply no need for another solution in my view. > > ...this seems to suggest that there is already a solution. > AFAICS, while you might support only one of the two solutions, there are > two solutions. Neither has been adopted and neither has been "selected". > > You might have better phrased this as "this is simply no need for two > solutions." It might be true that most people agree with that, but since > they will only agree if their preferred solution is chosen, it is possibly > not very helpful. > > However, you go on... > > > Of course the WG can continue discussing BIERv6 and may determine that > > it is nice to have BIERv6 as well, but we should not bundle them > > together when it comes to adoption. > > ...which seems to suggest that you don't think it is harmful to discuss > two solutions. > Since the adoption of one on its own is likely to reduce the chances of > adoption of the other, not bundling the adoptions might be a little > simplistic. I am not proposing that we poll the adoption of either solution > first. Nor am I suggesting making it an either/or adoption poll. > > So how about this? > > - BIER has a history of starting with Experimental work and seeing how it > develops > - This deployment case is somewhat niche: multicast is a bit rare, BIER is > not widely deployed for multicast, IPv6 is still (sadly) not ubiquitous, > bridging over IPv6 is a subset of BIER. > - Why not adopt both approaches as Experimental and set some clear terms > for the experiment? > > Cheers, > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > Sent: 28 November 2020 21:54 > To: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>; gjshep@gmail.com > Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; > draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements < > draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>; EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn < > zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>; Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 > > To clarify, there is no gap in the BIERin6 solution (besides the new "next > header" code point). It's just that some text are needed to explain how the > requirements are met with the BIERin6 solution - whether it is a > requirement already listed in the current requirements draft, or have been > brought up in recent mailing list discussions (I know of two in recent > discussions). > > BIERin6 is based on RFC 8296 (plus the new "next header" code point for > IPv6 encapsulation), and is a generic solution with the following > properties: > > 1. clean layering - BIER over L2/tunnel and it can carry different payload > types including SRv6 2. IPv4/IPv6 independent (of course you need different > signaling) 3. L2 independent - as long as the L2 header can indicate with a > code point that a BIER header follows 4. tunnel type independent - as long > as the tunnel header can indicate with a code point that a BIER header > follows 5. can work one-hop or multi-hop tunnels nicely 6. can work with > SRv6 based services nicely > > With the above, there is simply no need for another solution in my view. > Of course the WG can continue discussing BIERv6 and may determine that it > is nice to have BIERv6 as well, but we should not bundle them together when > it comes to adoption. That's why I suggested in the last BIER session the > following: > > - Adopt BIERin6 > - Discuss BIERv6 further > > Jeffrey > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 2:15 PM > To: 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> > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi Greg, > > >Thank you Jeffrey and Gyan for sticking with the thread of the > conversation to advance the discussion. It's clear now that all of the > requirements >discussed so far can be addressed by the BIERin6 draft if we > flesh out the discussed gaps. > > >I would like to see Jeffrey and Gyan take over as primary authors of > >BIERin6 to include the gaps discussed here so that it fully encompases > the requirements so far described, for WG adoption. > > I'm sure I'm misinterpreting. What it sounds like you are saying is "I > want bierin6 to be adopted so let's fix the gaps so we can begin". Since > both solutions meet the requirements, I'm hoping you meant "Let's fix the > gaps in bierin6 so we can begin adoption calls for both bierv6 and bierin6". > > mike > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:56 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang < > zzhang@juniper.net> > wrote: > > > Hi Gyan, > > > > > > > > Great that we reached consensus on BIERin6. > > > > Now there are two lingering points alluded to in this thread, but > > given it’s been such a long and deeply nested tread, I’ll start a new > > thread about it. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Jeffrey > > > > > > > > *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2020 1:32 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 > > > > > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > > > > > Hi Jeffrey > > > > > > > > That’s the last of my questions related to BIERin6. > > > > > > > > I thank you for taking the time to go over the BIERin6 draft in detail. > > > > > > > > We have reached consensus as well as are in sync, and I now have a > > better understanding of BIERin6. > > > > > > > > During the discussions I did mention that maybe in BIERin6 optional > > IPv6 tunneling should be removed, as it seemed to create some > > confusion, but now I am clear and as both the L2/tunnel and IPv6 > > L3/tunnel encapsulation single hop or multi hop tunnel both have the > > clean BIER layering and complement each other I agree they belong > together in the same draft. > > > > Even though L2/tunnel exists today as part of RFC8296 it makes sense > > to be part of the overall BIERin6 solution. > > > > > > > > I am clear on the two IANA code points requests required for the > > optional > > IPV6 encapsulation option. > > > > > > > > Over the course of this thread we did touch on some technical reasons > > why > > IPV6 encapsulation is necessary which I you mentioned in some of your > > responses. > > > > > > > > Overall throughout the discussions I agree that BIERin6 IPV6 tunnel > > option and BIERv6 are not transitional and are long term solutions and > > there are reasons why that we can add to the requirements draft as to > > why IPV6 encapsulation is necessary below: > > > > > > > > - Operator requirement for IPV6 encapsulated packets and not L2 > > encapsulation. > > > > -FRR > > > > > > > > I think we are all set to start updating the Requirements draft. > > > > > > > > In-line Gyan6> > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > > > > Gyan > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 10:39 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang < > > zzhang@juniper.net> wrote: > > > > Gyan, > > > > > > > > Please see zzh6> below. > > > > > > > > *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2020 9:49 PM > > *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 > > > > > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeffrey > > > > > > > > Agreed we have reached a consensus. > > > > > > > > > > > > Few more questions to iron out understanding. > > > > > > > > In line gyan4> > > > > > > > > Zzh6> Apparently there are still disconnects 😊 > > > > Gyan> Thank you for all the detailed responses. We are in sync now! > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:06 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang < > > zzhang@juniper.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Gyan, > > > > > > > > Yes I believe we’ve reached consensus. > > > > > > > > Please see zzh5> below about some details. > > > > > > > > *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:19 PM > > *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 > > > > > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > > > > > Hi Jeffrey > > > > > > > > This has been a very informative exchange and extremely helpful for > > all of us to get onto the same page from a basic understanding POV. > > > > > > > > Much appreciated all your help and feedback helping clarify my confusion. > > > > > > > > I am answering in-line but now connecting the dots how is in today’s > > RFC > > 8296 Non MPLS BIER Ethernet going to transport IPv6? > > > > > > > > From your answers below it cannot work as we need two IANA code point > > one for IPv6 next header type and ICMPv6. > > > > > > > > Zzh5> The existing model/concept works except that we need to two code > > points if IPv6 tunneling is used for either getting over non-BFRs or > > for FRR. One may deem non-BFR as a short-term scenario but FRR will be > > here for the long run. > > > > > > > > Gyan4>I am a little confused here with the code points. For > > BIERin6 “L2” BIER scenario RFC 8296 Non MPLS BIER Ethernet Ether type > 0xAB37. > > > > > > > > Ethernet -0xAB37 l BIER | IPv6 | payload > > > > > > > > Zzh6> Note that IPv6 header is not needed – it should be Ethernet > > Zzh6> -0xAB37 > > l BIER | payload. Of course, if SRv6 style VPN must be used, then IPv6 > > header may be inserted between BIER and payload, only for the SRv6 > > style VPN purpose. > > > > Gyan> Understood > > > > Ethernet -0xAB37 l BIER l ICMPv6 | payload > > > > > > > > Zzh6> ICMP was mentioned not for encapsulation but for the following: > > > > Gyan6>Understood > > > > Zzh6> 2.1. IPv6 Options Considerations > > > > > > > > For directly connected BIER routers, IPv6 Hop-by-Hop or Destination > > > > options are irrelevant and SHOULD NOT be inserted by BFIR on the > > > > BIERin6 packet. In this case IPv6 header, Next Header field should > > > > be set to TBD. Any IPv6 packet arriving on BFRs and BFERs, with > > > > multiple extension header where the last extension header has a > > Next > > > > Header field set to TBD, SHOULD be discard and the node should > > > > transmit an ICMP Parameter Problem message to the source of the > > > > packet (BFIR) with an ICMP code value of TBD10 ('invalid options > > for > > > > BIERin6'). > > > > > > > > In this particular scenario where adjacent BFRs support Ethernet link > > layer in an IPV6 environment and IPv6 or ICMPv6 encapsulation and the > > need for the next header code point above is the packet format: > > > > > > > > Excerpt from RFC 8296 > > > > > > > > Therefore, if a non-MPLS BIER packet is encapsulated in an Ethernet > > > > header, the Ethertype MUST NOT be 0x8847 or 0x8848 [RFC5332 > > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furl > > defense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outloo&a > > mp;data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb501cd53f4bd4d3f2c > > c208d89522310a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6374233214 > > 00994370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiL > > CJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ZTD3UoFNPPbw5cq63CD77bJ > > 6NP3gwiaciyErJ1OMMFI%3D&reserved=0 > > k.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furl__;JSUl!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XqcOU1H95lz8ueSP2Cetp > > u3B5ldFgwQpw2JZW7s_KsspK1DsMPGcaKe-PLU1AClK$ > > defense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc5332__%3B!! > > NEt6yMaO-gk!TVpj_z-fpnhYihjYO4kRLRrvHGFDKTzS09SdN8jA-VKR14p1w2ObtXPqQ8 > > 4ssHlj%24&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C97b8a34 > > 14dbe40bd528708d892e35223%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7 > > C637420852351965804%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj > > oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=8EiHsMns5Jut > > 7s6EmZvJSxvEwUuJKdtE8PbMZyYRBiQ%3D&reserved=0>]. IEEE > > > > has assigned Ethertype 0xAB37 for non-MPLS BIER packets. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the case of BIERin6 optional encapsulation option, in case where > > operators requires packets forwarded in IPv6 or tunneling over Non BFR > > packet format below: > > > > > > > > IPv6 outer header l BIER l Data > > > > > > > > So here the next header is BIER so corresponding next header code point. > > > > > > > > > > > > So below is for both cases IANA code point allocation for “L2” next > > header where next header is IPv6 or ICMPV6, and then the optional IPv6 > > encapsulation option where the next header is BIER. > > > > > > > > Would those be two separate IANA code point requests I what I see from > > the packet format. > > > > > > > > IANA L2 scenario: > > > > 2 code point requests for L2 for next header IPv6 and ICMP > > > > > > > > Zzh6> I don’t follow what you’re talking about. If BIER header follows > > Zzh6> L2 > > header directly, no new code point is needed. It’s just “Ethernet > > 0xAB37 | BIER | payload”. > > > > > > > > Gyan6> Agreed. > > > > > > > > IANA optional IPv6 scenario: > > > > 1 code point request for IPv6 for next header BIER > > > > > > > > Zzh6> If IPv6 encapsulation is used, either on between directly > > Zzh6> connected > > BFRs or indirectly connected BFRs, a new “next header” code point is > > needed for BIER. > > > > Gyan6>Understood > > > > > > 5 > > < > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Ftools.ietf.org*2Fhtml*2Fdraft-zhang-bier-bierin6-07*section-5__*3BIw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TVpj_z-fpnhYihjYO4kRLRrvHGFDKTzS09SdN8jA-VKR14p1w2ObtXPqQ_dVL5sH*24%26amp%3Bdata%3D04*7C01*7Cmichael.mcbride*40futurewei.com*7C97b8a3414dbe40bd528708d892e35223*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C637420852351965804*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000%26amp%3Bsdata%3DnEiVnnCjvgjBOe7cymYDxS784YHPeOpsWHsatN25kj0*3D%26amp%3Breserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlKiUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XqcOU1H95lz8ueSP2Cetpu3B5ldFgwQpw2JZW7s_KsspK1DsMPGcaKe-PHwxls5N%24&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb501cd53f4bd4d3f2cc208d89522310a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637423321400994370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=fszY8MUPUn7HymiDWii297tMT7ztwl1VwUcn25Rlo58%3D&reserved=0 > >. > > IANA Considerations > > > > > > > > > > > > IANA is requested to assign a new "BIER" type for "Next Header" in > > > > the "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers" registry. > > > > > > > > IANA is requested to assign a new "BIERin6" type for "invalid > > > > options" in the "ICMP code value" registry. > > > > > > > > IANA is requested to assign a new "BIER IPv6 transportation > > Sub-sub- > > > > TLV" type in the "OSPFv3 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-TLV" > > > > Registry. > > > > > > > > IANA is requested to set up a new "BIER IPv6 transportation > > Sub-sub- > > > > sub-TLV" type in the "IS-IS BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV" > > > > Registry. > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is that the IANA allocation is different as the next header > > is different for the L2 scenario where next header is IPv6 or ICMPV6, > > and IPv6 encapsulation scenario where the next header is BIER. > > > > > > > > Zzh6> If BIER header follows L2 header directly, BIER Ethertype is > > Zzh6> used > > (assuming Ethernet is the L2). > > > > Gyan>Understood > > > > Based on this point I am making could we just do a RFC8296 bis version > > and add the IANA code points for IPv6 and ICMPv6. > > > > > > > > Zzh6> Given the confusion/contention that have happened in the last > > Zzh6> two > > years, it is much better to specifically have a spec dedicated to > > supporting BIER in IPv6. > > > > Gyan6> I think now looking at it holistically speaking I can now see > > parity between the L2/tunnel and L3/tunnel both also having the clean > > layering. So I can see why adding existing L2/tunnel to BIERin6 even > > though it already exists made sense to bundle into BIERin6 total > > solution > > Juniper Business Use Only > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb501cd53f4bd4d3f2cc208d89522310a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637423321401004365%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=z%2FZLlPIEI9raumWwe9iKpI7wLJcoedPNZUKPepNLuR0%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb501cd53f4bd4d3f2cc208d89522310a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637423321401004365%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=z%2FZLlPIEI9raumWwe9iKpI7wLJcoedPNZUKPepNLuR0%3D&reserved=0 > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
- [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 peng.shaofu
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Michael McBride
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Loa Andersson
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Michael McBride
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra