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

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Wed, 25 November 2020 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96343A0ECB for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:27:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TjkiZN7MUUue for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927F63A0EB4 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml734-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CgmVm16cbz67Hhd; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:25:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com ( by fraeml734-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 04:27:20 +0100
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ( by nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:27:18 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:27:18 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
CC: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the requirements? //RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
Thread-Index: AdbC2obW60KOMdCpR6eBBZ/7XBoW/Q==
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 03:27:17 +0000
Message-ID: <d518b2ac16a2468e8aa80bf77d0bc5d9@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/JvmQOxLUMVhdEGLeBgRvfIIn4Us>
Subject: [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 03:27:30 -0000

(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.

-----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>om>; draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements <draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>rg>; gjshep@gmail.com
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09


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