Re: [Bier] adoption call for draft-zzhang-bier-multicast-as-a-service

duanfanghong <> Thu, 16 June 2022 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B95C14F733; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EkjskA3GBsRI; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40839C14F72F; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LNyJL0qM6z687wP; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:57:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 11:57:14 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:57:12 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:57:12 +0800
From: duanfanghong <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] adoption call for draft-zzhang-bier-multicast-as-a-service
Thread-Index: AQHYeMXfOoiwAE8ZBkKI2IFFHENon61RwrPQ
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:57:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] adoption call for draft-zzhang-bier-multicast-as-a-service
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 16 Jun 2022 09:57:23 -0000

I have read this draft and have following comments:

1. In this document, it introduced a RD domain sub-tlv to leak all the client BFR prefixes to provider's backbone. The solution doesn't follows the traditional VPN architecture, and faces the scalable problems in the scenarios with large scale VPNs. And the providers may also don't want to be aware of the client BFR prefixes in backbone. 

2. It was recommended in the draft that the RDs of all sites of a specific user VPN should be same, I wonder whether the solution can work if the RDs is distinct, which the author of this draft discussed with me in BESS mailing list for another draft and he insisted that the RDs is distinct in most cases.

-----Original Message-----
From: BIER [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 6:19 PM
Subject: [Bier] adoption call for draft-zzhang-bier-multicast-as-a-service

This is the 2-week WG adoption call  for
Please indicate your support or objection.
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Sandy (As WG secretary, on behalf of Greg/Tony)

BIER mailing list