Re: [Bier] Call For Adoption: draft-zhang-bier-bierin6

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Tue, 02 March 2021 02:18 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 959723A0C7C for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:18:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.816
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_NONELEMENT_30_40=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 Hl0aMTq3guqA for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:18:39 -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 BC7FC3A0C66 for <bier@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:18:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 268427B0172E401D1AE0; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:18:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1222IAru099940; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:18:10 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:18:10 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:18:10 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa603da06222854e4f
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202103021018103825999@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <21b915579f8f413190cbe3230720801d@huawei.com>
References: CABFReBodz5ko0wAZ_8vKgreWMLnCE_6O_qhKS_RGUbSAowEwfQ@mail.gmail.com, BYAPR13MB2582DB22A823BBEDF071DE93F49D9@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com, 21b915579f8f413190cbe3230720801d@huawei.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
To: <zhangzhe22@huawei.com>
Cc: <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, <gjshep@gmail.com>, <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 1222IAru099940
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/NswZvxseay81U8tvoKZBGzk48oM>
Subject: Re: [Bier] =?utf-8?q?Call_For_Adoption=3A_draft-zhang-bier-bierin6?=
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, 02 Mar 2021 02:18:43 -0000

Hi Zhe, 


Just response to your comments about fragmentation. 


If you read the BIERin6 draft more carefully, you may find that the fragmentation description is in section 1.2 and not in section 2. 


The first option is treat the IPv6 fragmentation packet as BIER payload, the BFR needs not to do the assembling work. 


Only BFIR and BFER needs to do the fragmentation and assembling work. This function is mature and practicable. 


The second option provides a novel way for fragmentation, not only for BIER. 


The working group draft takes time to be mature, the GTF function as well. 


Thanks,


Sandy





原始邮件



发件人:zhangzhe(M)
收件人:Michael McBride;gjshep@gmail.com;BIER WG;
日 期 :2021年03月02日 09:37
主 题 :Re: [Bier] Call For Adoption: draft-zhang-bier-bierin6




_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
BIER@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

 

I agree with mike and oppose the adoption of this draft.


 


For example, this document proposes 2 options for the fragmentation in BIERin6 in section 2.


One is using an IPv6 header before BIER header, but this will enforce every BFR to assembly and re-fragment a packet.


The other is to use a Fragment header after BIER header to avoid intermediate BFR to do the assembly and re-fragment,


however I don’t think it is a mature and accepted solution to support this draft to be adopted.


 


Thank you.


Zhe Zhang


 



From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael McBride
 Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 2:15 PM
 To: gjshep@gmail.com; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
 Subject: Re: [Bier] Call For Adoption: draft-zhang-bier-bierin6




 


Oppose.


 


We are unfortunately no where near consensus on this topic including this draft. We’ll likely see that during this adoption call.


 


Adrian’s suggestion for consensus remains the best I’ve heard: simultaneously call to adopt both solutions as experimental.


 


mike


 



From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
 Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:37 AM
 To: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
 Subject: [Bier] Call For Adoption: draft-zhang-bier-bierin6



 


Thank you all for the active discussion that brought us to consensus. This draft now addresses all of the points of discussion for the solution. 


 



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-bier-bierin6/



 



Please reply to this thread with your support/opposition of WG adoption of the draft.



 



Thanks,



Shep



(Chairs)