IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] A comment about draft-xzlnp-bier-ioam

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Sat, 19 March 2022 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@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 038263A07D4 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2022 23:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 gkmDSD6kcKt4 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2022 23:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E2B93A07CF for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2022 23:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4KL9yF1tkbz8QrkZ for <bier@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 14:31:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4KL9xg1Nkbz8fkWc; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 14:31:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 22J6UwJx058818; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 14:30:58 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 14:30:58 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 14:30:58 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb623578a2c00fb99d
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202203191430580019286@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB56526573902EEC959F7F4072D4139@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: BL0PR05MB56526573902EEC959F7F4072D4139@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: bier@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 22J6UwJx058818
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 623578C5.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1647671493/4KL9yF1tkbz8QrkZ/623578C5.000/192.168.251.13/[192.168.251.13]/mxct.zte.com.cn/<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 623578C5.000/4KL9yF1tkbz8QrkZ
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/PQ76UrLn-t73VHGZ0iravx016ek>
Subject: Re: [Bier] A comment about draft-xzlnp-bier-ioam
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: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 06:31:40 -0000

Hi Jeffrey,

Thank you for bringing it up to our attention.
I do agree your GDF draft provides a third option on how to encapsulate IOAM over BIER, which is different from the two options already described and compared in this BIER-IOAM draft.
To my understanding, the initial and main motivation to introduce GDF is to provide a fragmentation header for MPLS/BIER etc, just like IPv6 FH.
With that in mind, one possible way to push this "Encapsulating IOAM in BIER" work forward is to add the third option into BIER-IOAM draft for comparison, that makes it focused and easy to follow.
What's your opinion?

Best Regards,
Xiao Min

------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：Jeffrey(Zhaohui)Zhang
收件人：'bier@ietf.org';draft-xzlnp-bier-ioam@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2022年03月18日 20:56
主 题 ：[Bier] A comment about draft-xzlnp-bier-ioam
Hi,
For IOAM data in BIER, I want to point out that we should use a generic header format that can be used for BIER/MPLS/IPv6. The same extension mechanism can be used for other purposes like fragmentation/security, etc..
This was discussed in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-zzhang-intarea-generic-delivery-functions-02.txt, and was mentioned in slide #6 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-bier-03-bier-slicing-and-differentiation-00 in IETF112 BIER session.
Thanks.
Jeffrey
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
BIER@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email