[Bier] Meeting Notes 110

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Tue, 09 March 2021 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@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 5D5073A0D58 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:14:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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] 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 kPUjqzY_3LKl for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (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 A8C463A0D52 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id k2so12290825ili.4 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 06:14:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=SYLDn1eAH17LXrt8mQ5xfCkUpjjSRlm4ZvcfQQtD+Pc=; b=iQ3OJi7rAy+WXSD0RIdCCZBAUUj6etVZDT9f9OjvfJACRSD6XSJxJeuUKucE8YVlYP 78mafLflfJkLlm7Uref4dKg2hjb41JwZGNRJNiUN8F+I7tWngmw2wPRXaNIT0JrEclhz 8rlhT+nugZ+zRXS+bpVCCoasZJXLku7ptXhWFAd/lFk2zx/w5cKDeVDMVy0p8oJHkYgt +cDCg/IywJ252w3+oQ1QyytpV7qwm5VGl99k5Rq35JPezxBDdw7HPLjz7zlC5ugqhOCy 1vnp2f+WQN3/BMH3gpiLWwfeU3R+K9jZrShKXgKbcyBfMvgwJHy7iOLkdgD2h337zDbL dnpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=SYLDn1eAH17LXrt8mQ5xfCkUpjjSRlm4ZvcfQQtD+Pc=; b=XkA4jEBpWIwzCDZ4B9TDTT2JZUDmEPBdYDSand3DI0SG/tUc7ak3La2sqmKlLiv2Tg C0Ag5/4LXV2VE5oc5aknVzjwnY0pE4M0SD+so/yPoRloHagh0xX+2LUT7qQjjE16uabm +yZ7a/d9G8YrmMWX2gnxYl5JZzC/Ra7GREz4VT5Vjv0/MoWQM5+VJXbiVmi48cnW6CWM PvDUNSOV/u4+AbCh5Y/iPLPrCtvYg9iQz2Abmnh8fDzE0mlmhU3NDfwn4BdmfiRi+iQp QPePMMygzd1YtFsS63RfhKuH8eNbT1MnLKgtztZm+jI6HzATmMGetzTCqLxTimijETko c99A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Mk80nQDKYXfpNagGyzZs7K0vSAmpmvDJuQoSofvZLc3SQuPiH n6JDC+knttnz4QvO7updXNg5HLSBkie55p/hVwwT/ivDwF1lHj+H
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWJDsb3e1fDkh2NQuaUl0IH7YRo3PFMqTRDDHukbaYkF+bjB+egHmM2TWWyRqtq9yNVwLfX74uNO2GPLlICMo=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:6505:: with SMTP id z5mr15864059ilb.269.1615299243856; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 06:14:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:13:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hPuNL6BCAtwoVdYLf7s_NrqA91xO2w3HisP58Y5+PPxCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a2d61705bd1b2915"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/J-wT7qmMFqxU2cbmxeewI8nbJJA>
Subject: [Bier] Meeting Notes 110
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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 14:14:07 -0000

BIER Session Minutes Mar, 9, 2021


Draft Tethering Egress Protection Update
========================================

Huaimo: Should we have a dedicated document to egress protection only?
Chairs: Yes, possibly good idea, let's go to the list and find consensus on
that.

BIER Implementation
===================

Discussion on research networks & different implemenations

MLD
===

WG LC: 8 in favor, goes to the list

MLDP
====

Adopted already, call for any additional comments

WG LC: 5 in favor, goes to the list

OAM
===

Calls for shepherds

Hooman: Shepherds path-mtu-discovery

TE Drafts (egress & FRR)
========================

no further discussion

BIER FRR
========

Adoption: 8 for, 1 against
Greg: too much state
Tony P: we already have this state with IGP anyway
Hooman: is that just IGP protection nexthop?
Huaimo: we have FRR table for the nexthop
Thorless: sender/receivers do not change state so it's BIER
Hooman: but we'll have interop confusion about differnt FRR
Tony P: draft probably has to be very explicit about what happens when IGP
is signalling and in which cases you use this solution and what happens in
case of overlaps


INGRESS PROTECTION
==================

Huaimo: why detect failures nodes in the middle?
Greg/Sandy: it's the same as ingress protection. only mechanism we have is
p2mp BFD
Call for Adoption: 9 to 0, take to the list