[Bier] draft-chen-bier-frr-02 - relation to tunnel-based bier-frr

Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de> Tue, 16 March 2021 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>
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 7EB313A1FB7 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 02:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 OnI7zfQFzBDC for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 02:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx04.uni-tuebingen.de (mx04.uni-tuebingen.de [IPv6:2001:7c0:300c:3105::8602:5d6]) (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 D098C3A1FB6 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 02:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (HSI-KBW-078-043-000-193.hsi4.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de []) by mx04.uni-tuebingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A971209AB30 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:10:25 +0100 (CET)
To: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
From: Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>
Message-ID: <c9437fc3-e1cd-cfe0-712e-57160d1b4302@uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:10:26 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/NK8BE7Yu1azYB-Dt0ik8GrBCKH8>
Subject: [Bier] draft-chen-bier-frr-02 - relation to tunnel-based bier-frr
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, 16 Mar 2021 09:10:31 -0000

Hi all, in particular authors of draft-chen-bier-frr,

in the introduction of your draft you state issues with tunnel-based
frr, but the text is unclear to me:

To avoid this supposed shortcoming, you propose a different bier-frr
approach. Can you clarify, please?

An in-depts comparison between tunnel-based frr, which leverages frr of
the underlay, and "native frr on the bier layer" can be found here:

The latter approach has been first published as
[3] I. Wijnands, G. J. Shepherd, C. J. Martin, and R. Asati, Per-Prefix
LFA FRR with Bit Indexed Explicit Replication,
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180278470A1/en, Sep.2018.

AFAIK this is also the concept followed by draft-chen-bier-frr, but I am
not fully sure as this has not been cited. Reaction speeds of both
mechanisms should be similar as they depend mainly on the time to
notification about the failure. Experimental results for
draft-merling-bier-frr are provided in the paper cited in my previous email.

Kind regards


Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505
fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220