Re: [Bier] BIER slicing & flex algo

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Fri, 12 November 2021 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 EB96E3A12B1 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 22:27:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.863
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.036, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HJuNVYgh3Ry9 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 22:27:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F8E13A12B0 for <bier@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 22:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 06059A53649B75601055; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:27:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id CB8F59C2DC44D537A4D8; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:27:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1AC6QfZo045949; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:26:41 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:26:41 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:26:41 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa618e092170009940
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202111121426411397721@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB56542068848CD84ACC94C866D4949@BYAPR05MB5654.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: BYAPR05MB56542068848CD84ACC94C866D4949@BYAPR05MB5654.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
To: <zzhang@juniper.net>
Cc: <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 1AC6QfZo045949
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/KLD4KvfaWWpqXD2pJzAsJYQGMAA>
Subject: Re: [Bier] =?utf-8?q?BIER_slicing_=26_flex_algo?=
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: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 06:27:13 -0000

Hi Jeffrey, 
Yes. The draft "draft-nainar-bier-flex-algo-00" was I talked about in yesterday meeting. 
And I agree with you, the IPA can be set to the FA-ID, and the SA infomation can be carried in the sub-TLV.
Thanks, 
Sandy


------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人:Jeffrey(Zhaohui)Zhang
收件人:Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong);张征00007940;
抄送人:bier@ietf.org;
日 期 :2021年11月12日 04:55
主 题 :BIER slicing & flex algo

Hi Xuesong, Sandy,

I thought you were referring to some BIER+FlexAlgo draft - I could only find this https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nainar-bier-flex-algo-00 but that does not seem to be what you were referring to.

Anyway, the BIER slicing draft should work well with flex algo - each SA (for one or a set of slices) would have a corresponding FlexAlgo and maps to a BIRT. In fact, after looking at the following in RFC 8401:

0                   1                   2                   3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    Type       |   Length      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   BAR         |    IPA        | subdomain-id  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     BFR-id                    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  sub-sub-TLVs (variable)                                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I don’t think we need the signaling extensions mentioned the BIER slicing draft. The “IPA” field above will identify the flex algo number used for an SA. We just need to allow multiple sub-TLVs of the above for the same subdomain (currently not allowed in RFC8401) and make sure that different IPAs will lead to different BIRTs.

Jeffrey


Juniper Business Use Only