Re: [Bier] comments on draft-xu-bier-encapsulation-03

[Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

Architecturally the information carried in this encapsulation is more than
> necessary (which is NOT good). The architecture clearly indicates that a
> sub-domain MUST match onto one MT-ID and with that carrying both is
> superfluous, carrying subdomain is good enough. This also resolves the
> issue of e.g. driving this encapsulation with idr-extensions which doesn’t
> even carry a multi-topology concept.
>
>
>
> [Xiaohu] OK,  we will remove the MT-ID field from the BIER header so as
> to keep it consistent with the current BIER architecture.
>

ack


>
>
> As well, why does the encaps carry BFR-id ? is that
> source/destination/originator ? None of those seem necessary to me ?
>
>
>
> [Xiaohu] BFR-id indicates the ingress BFR. It may be neccessary in some
> use cases such as performance measurement.
>


ok, if it's not used for the forwarding decision not much I can say about
it. We have however OAM drafts which provide for precisely this kind of
stuff so I suggest reading those. Putting OAM fields into forwarding header
is maybe not the best decision here  ..


>
>