Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints

Gyan Mishra <> Thu, 17 June 2021 03:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767453A193E for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FRlXJhEQtN0R for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3DC3A193C for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z3-20020a17090a3983b029016bc232e40bso3038268pjb.4 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MUibtz6LvznMH5rpl20Wq6TVnKz3Fo9+dhy+Ol5KAls=; b=eyUhKr+kklLL4x5RHuepavwz8oJUc+3MqHiBL6RtUNAMwNtev47oi5sORVurnC4n0i 9UGIJtTU4mbOnK98djgD2wcQ3IIVv1Qu+pc04/QtvwtRaMT2Oh9Zd9KJEPhCf6J12AO3 k30GmmStBp1hCQs2+ZNYVhOnIl3G3zIzWlBm5AIVF8qopJrCOP/06DT/f1HU+q8kb9zK KeRw2a6HlaDPb+vpuSzu49TNOkKGq1dGloyEcZZePliTO/Hqbt/kcc3FncEkQY9djLJ/ XDlTuLv+0yubQVGRCsQBhyy0iW+nmhhODQAKHtRmBU5HBqS6/NR41sb9JQ9BkCAxu/kN KQlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MUibtz6LvznMH5rpl20Wq6TVnKz3Fo9+dhy+Ol5KAls=; b=jux2l5Ilyu0ta1h5dIrdXuzY5nxJZdPmrqjHkXsfw6xnKhEzh4yOP6/k8ZY2JpB5bJ wBpLgS6coWQQLYzBJKgelfhygsrDh8PbCfpZKSnVTc3GXZCNh861oZPNZ/Wtloj3tDOW 8NqH5ESnjyV2wQN4Oo1+hx7w/+sbfGKQlBBJxQSJ4qtnOcqOqe91B5xDjICk9ukNOAr8 GpN3MGjnAgewOlMx7LACXbYxhs3tC9zDRSnADnOkkh8c7wkbW2SxBofY5/nTvJ1kFRay chirCExND/faHTnc/AErhSO3LFdcGlqalVj5+1mOdGvz7osx8Ho84NsScuqwCLT1LUsk heuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mnogsXCUon5Skg35O8Wzs0k0F3YhAPyIPHZsLejeN6DwM5CJz UjZSObuPb0paqDCU/AVsZQIrw+ajWlDhD7aTciM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1HRfjyP3CW3H9EXkjQma5oNWxezxx/gUma1py8/F7eBmBU7gXbe1PVoywryjQNes+2uAW4MZ6szKogzJG7JQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:5403:: with SMTP id z3mr14513795pjh.215.1623902071207; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 23:54:20 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael McBride <>
Cc: Martin Vigoureux <>, "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001abb3e05c4ee2a32"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 03:54:38 -0000

Some thoughts on future progression possibilities for BIERv6.

As the BIER architecture is based on simple simple encapsulation and
layering L2 1/2 MPLS BIER or Non MPLS BIER Ethernet - BIERin6.

BIERv6 with utilizes the  IPv6 data plane falls out of scope of the BIER
charter even though maybe a viable solution due to the fact that it
utilizes the IPv6 data plane for encoding the BIER header is where the
solution ran into trouble gaining consensus within the WG.

So it’s not that the solution is not a solid or viable solution, but the
fact that it relies on the IPv6 data plane for encoding BIER layer which
ends up being unfortunately out of scope with BIER WG.

A good example of a similar issue related to a technology that uses the
IPv6 data plane falling out of scope of the intended WG where the
architecture resides is SRv6.

SRv6 PGM RFC8986 and SRv6 SRH RFC 8754 are part of the Spring WG Segment
routing architectures, however all the development fell out of the WG as
Spring is chartered for Source Routing framework, however since SRv6
utilizes the IPv6 data plane it fell outside of the scope of the Spring WG.

So both SRv6 PGM RFC8986 and SRv6 SRH RFC 8754 were developed, adopted and
progressed to RFC in 6MAN which owns the IPv6 data plane and any technology
that utilizes  the IPv6 data plane.

During the development, WG adoption and WGLC both WGs Spring and 6MAN
collaborated on the development of the specification.  There were some
definite snags with RFC 8200 and following the IPv6 specification to a
letter but in the end we all came to agreement and both drafts finally
progressed to RFC.

I think BIERin6 as it utilizes the IPv6 data plane could be progressed in
6MAN are my thoughts and developed.  Both WGs would collaborate together to
progress the draft.

My 2 cents

Kind Regards


On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:47 PM Michael McBride <>

> Howdy,
> Le 2021-06-11 à 13:40, Xiejingrong (Jingrong) a écrit :
> > Dear Martin,
> >
> > We've responded to the summary from chairs on that thread. I think it
> reflects the key technical differences between us and the chairs.
> >>From chairs' point of view, BIERv6 violates BIER architecture, which is
> L2 in nature and should not be IPv6/SRv6 dependent.
> >>From our point of view, BIERv6 does not violate BIER architecture, which
> should be interpreted by RFC8279 text instead of other informal
> interpretation.
> >it appears to me that this is the discussion the WG needs to have and
> reach consensus on.
> My take from the chairs summary is that they believe BIERv6 is simply
> unnecessary, not that it violates the bier architecture.
> There are many of us who believe using EH for the bitstring is a great use
> of IPv6 with bier. This was presented in 6man with positive feedback.
> Perhaps the time has come to propose this work in an IPv6 EH friendly WG?
> mike
> >
> > For the detailed technical points in the BIERv6 solution, we think they
> have been checked carefully in BIER WG and other WGs for long time, and
> have been proven by implementation and test.
> > Also there are solid requirements from industry to have well-adapted
> BIER solution in IPv6/SRv6 network.
> >
> > We seek for your guidance to move our work forward in IETF. We would
> like to propose two options about what should be done in the next step:
> > 1) Consider to adopt BIERv6 in BIER WG, if BIERv6 complies with BIER
> architecture.
> > 2) Move BIERv6 work to other WG, e.g., PIM or SPRING, if BIERv6 does not
> comply with BIER architecture.
> >
> > Thank you very much for your help.
> >
> > Jingrong
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BIER [] On Behalf Of Martin
> > Vigoureux
> > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:29 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
> >
> > WG
> >
> > First, I'd like to apologize for the time this has taken.
> >
> > I have reviewed the two formal complaints that were sent early March,
> and I have also reviewed most of the e-mails that were sent on the bier
> mailing list for the past 12 months or so, relating to BIER and IPv6.
> >
> > I will not individually discuss the various points raised, rather I will
> make a general statement.
> >
> > It is my opinion that a certain number of points are not critical (in
> the sense of not needing an AD to step-in) and some typically happen
> sometimes as part of the life cycle of WGs. Yet, I do recognize that some
> points are more problematic than others.
> > Further, it is my opinion that the points listed may arise from a
> variety of intentions and as such it is hazardous to associate them with a
> particular one.
> > It is however my opinion that the multiplicity of concerns is, in
> itself, a concern.
> > I have talked with the chairs. They do recognize that, at some
> occasions, their communication was not the most effective one, and I trust
> they will pay attention to that in the future.
> >
> > About the adoption poll on draft-zhang-bier-bierin6. Although the way
> this was handled raised some concerns, I'd like to remind that an adoption
> poll is not formally part of our processes, even if it is common practice,
> and in fact it only marks the start of the WG discussion. As such, I have
> little arguments to go back on this.
> >
> > The last part is about the progress of a so-called BIER v6 solution.
> > Here, I have asked the chairs to establish a summary of the discussions
> regarding that type of solution in general and regarding the specific
> document which proposes a solution. They should publish it some time after
> this e-mail.
> >
> > Following that, it is my expectation that the WG has a fair and open
> discussion, ideally focussing on the general aspects, and then concludes on
> the way forward.
> >
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BIER mailing list
> >
> >
> >;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40fut
> >
> > 1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637592689222267034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj
> > oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&am
> > p;sdata=ng78EEFJ0jNyOSdkvfv4Ic6xB3%2FpZkfY66Q%2BWdGZfIk%3D&amp;reserve
> > d=0
> >
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email <>*

*M 301 502-1347*