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

Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Wed, 25 November 2020 05:16 UTC

Return-Path: <gjshep@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 602463A0F41 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:16:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 OMceLNT97QGA for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62b.google.com (mail-ej1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62b]) (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 52EA43A0F3A for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id 7so1254440ejm.0 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:16:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=YntBrSHrB6aKo6bFg9yDyQRVqC4y9/QfyXBGZJzhiuI=; b=aTjmnTNi/P7s7yj8IEUfVfJyep4NU4boIK0i1Uyu6Z4JEXB9OxBDJhaMJZ+FoC9Z4r ovy2w6gLTDO847HvMtnIUVrUZn8Rb+grM+970hHZxeE4M+yXF5X2KE3Xtc8q67wBD6Hj GRXeSbnTIYvxf/TQNdmy9cYp1D2FYG2M7BWN8f2gRIDjzHX18/PF7NPm860Y94o+xstr ByhSGybwUtIHMN3J3WPS8Y3aU7POJjW7OcZytbtaOGdnwFvp+Z5uQfCEFTtg7+NjCFsi uVn0aknioyBe72vH1gwh6viSccfQJSWe4E+xCzxjx2Mh0BPdYztmlRJpgE203deRhYQh hNCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YntBrSHrB6aKo6bFg9yDyQRVqC4y9/QfyXBGZJzhiuI=; b=kb5w9B8bVSPP5h1AVW4We5nQ5gkvkwKfWWaEcEQHEk+VIp/eH1VPjhyiH8i/Ee5FMn 3LO84RHSpc7oWUe9b8rb7kUaOMCPPpFD9zEGP0AFc1GhG8pPLNUNXEVWK/KKWYyn5L5K DHWkwBMxI1tZwHnBl+gpYN1dMXqTZxPpbRv+KR2IBH/vkWAUEU4yVqTtrHZt5V2fwW+S gI+w+ID5e2ZAlD0eblM3ml2IxJADoSrPT6tAzItri9Ru7CcnUmt33P7imRrEEaQ286hQ 9y1m8/W+TFyJ1piayy+BwQtN6CVXz+znbkoR2S4VzUs0mFcd9bqz+hdeKYLqNz8ck0Ej nLiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532RY01L1m1J/Qz+Sdxk6HbAD4nyc5GsZTf7d00CCtRbE+wUKbde 5K65VftXH1L4RdgW1ZfmFExrS4xmJBApWrP4e7w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwGgtaKZs9kKXARcubaabB42CXgrxjXspz54nliaxKUpRcaLjL8IauT5VcdvCW/yaa9UT7l+T0v8kswDcwGGnI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:40c7:: with SMTP id nv7mr1689992ejb.325.1606281372795; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:16:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d518b2ac16a2468e8aa80bf77d0bc5d9@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <d518b2ac16a2468e8aa80bf77d0bc5d9@huawei.com>
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:16:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CABFReBrz+to4JPRxZzAykTbPyvsX=axMHhv2a5rghetnt9jNrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a288d705b4e7862b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/Klngk_tJg4Q9d3SA2SRzXp8DvQE>
Subject: Re: [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 05:16:16 -0000

Please try to keep comments on track and in-line with the thread.
Stand-alone questions like this are just digging up ground we've already
sowed.

Thanks,
Shep

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:27 PM Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <
xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote:

> (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.
>
> Thanks
> Jingrong
>
> -----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>gt;; draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements <
> draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>gt;; gjshep@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
>
> Jeffrey
>
> 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
>
> Gyan
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>