Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 17:09 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 3A2523A100F; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.077
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.077 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, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, 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 jHOY7yAkZOdD; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92c.google.com (mail-ua1-x92c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92c]) (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 633163A100D; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92c.google.com with SMTP id f15so1159621uaq.9; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oBPPRuFj0ThgirvJEdtLQGc7Yz5Hy4O4oaeViZZKTKs=; b=XG6zv0etcqMjGztEIBJSUvJ0ROg7y76nilf1bQ/n+Q8vP94ubenLoa4zBLDb+580da QZ51sd3lp8ulmudT14QkrZI7Qg4Ms7mh1Hul0n1bFiffHI7P0voBNGFsg84+40AReiIp KsHMi/DpROfCQzKpEXdpNpiQ1jOB1/Y+RO9lQzRvqtTOLoyUAHz4fUtRxQMO87tcRmig Sk747Ld13UVA9Fm/JpgOJQUdGfFB+ehw3s5fB/JBZ9U0jLvn1TgI78nmxTJj7Ci+JUG2 dcyEIKnAQzSMLLHhT/ADZY5yWzVfHwCgD1VOyglwfHaruDBWBVK5kqiBciS2QMdTVeLr NwNA==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oBPPRuFj0ThgirvJEdtLQGc7Yz5Hy4O4oaeViZZKTKs=; b=CzTPqqKGdaiYPjDQt69FLKDID1vHdUZiwLrOoEN7kXm/iObiiAOD5dy4IAdFwr+dxc NTKg949GzB2UTjvNTq1ucJa3mM6pg9Hodut+TjjZ+e5FyBLfTpZrEyce6JAas1Qu7jTj kxrFVBitT8UbHmwa2IqhpAL9s5N2Fq+cYIhOt/FWWMuR5EM5g456dts8y+1bq7RXAj9k dRK15HHMbZGc+SLSYEqyZyDWFj1qpjzoDEz4PVlo9KOrqsA0CYX8BC0rXLK7Gld0z38R fTRLka4Gd78M4PVVbO+ojjf8oETOBPG0wcsojWBd61fw6Iiy/swIB6M5FEELsmDuRWmj 0LYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532JT+itPbi9jOfAMjQNB6sGplW4vom+SoRg+/I0+8BjxspdaHS9 x01NjgGLaXQO7j1auZjvhHpj5gD/5nCh++AV+1E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJznU7EwNqfjx3AoN2ONnH8/4L01KJpkDGkgFu9nWYzeDRZpCedxYOa8aDWVo2ECfEhdnx/3DLPE7MplFK1n8d0=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4e25:: with SMTP id g37mr755747uah.106.1601053745170; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMESsy2Jui8fnXWKekOrkZnzzjLZDdJpxGi9FzM-ayWb0DCxg@mail.gmail.com> <fd5ce1d4c1f846cba912835bb2d890d1@huawei.com> <CABFReBoTC5xEtc1OBKWmChr1BhKS4FqnUjS4d8CTTX-M+651dA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2bKpotFU2hoJc1YCX=mDUO_M3icPwQtiK_h+5igYe6Pw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB59817A65F5F444241A1A9A54D4390@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABFReBrGSCcrfgeY_Bsc3ttbGABi8mrNWWB8rQ7wWWNRO36ijA@mail.gmail.com> <0577c1902546498d84af1f705dac6c21@huawei.com> <CABFReBoqAkfWT9erbb=+1mxD9gGAwRMMLg6eR5kh=Ra_rvecog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBoqAkfWT9erbb=+1mxD9gGAwRMMLg6eR5kh=Ra_rvecog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:08:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1kyUQc9=g14bgjVxnOSL-dqJC+EzTN4w0gbm=X=2rNCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: gjshep@gmail.com
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>, "bier-chairs@ietf.org" <bier-chairs@ietf.org>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bf4dcd05b0265f95"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/Rb7FtwE-bOsMNZAb3_ZrgXnGOfA>
Subject: Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 17:09:09 -0000
Hi Greg In-line On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:41 AM Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote: > Xuesong, > > Inline: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:09 PM Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) < > gengxuesong@huawei.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Just one more comment: Any WG feedback is welcome. All the previous >> comments are carefully considered and discussed among authors[*]. If there >> is something >> >> new, raise it up with implementable operations and it will be addressed. >> (Unless I'm missing something, section 3 hasn’t been asked to be removed or >> even considered inappropriate until version 07 was published in my >> knowledge) >> > > There was no 'solution comparison' section in rev 0. It appeared in rev1, > and at the end of the doc. Since then that section has been carefully > word-smithed to direct the conversation about the requirements themselves. > It was removed in rev 4 at the request of the WG. Then it reappeared in rev > 6 - without any WG request - and promoted to the top of the document, no > longer hiding the authors intent of leading the conversation on > requirements. So yes, nobody asked to remove it since rev 4 since it was no > longer there. As soon as it reappeared, the authors were asked to remove > it. Nothing new here except the authors' increasing pressure to resist > input from the WG. > > Please remove that section rev the draft. There is nothing more to discuss > until then. > > Thanks, > - Chairs > (Shep) > > I just went through all the versions to see where section 3 is added or omitted below: Rev 0 - omitted Rev 1 - omitted Rev 2 and 3 - appears in 5.4 5.5 I think that is what you ar talking about word smithing .. Rev 4 omitted Rev 5-7 - added back Rev 8 - moved to appendix Based on the above we will remove section 3 from the appendix. Since the solutions drafts themselves speak for the solutions in detail I think we can focus strictly on the requirements in this draft as Greg, Tony and Alvaro stated. Greg - I was not aware of the details history of what transpired early this year with the few revisions prior to me joining as author. I will work with the team to right the ship remain steadfast on the requirements. Thanks Gyan >> >> Xuesong >> >> >> >> >> >> [*]Here are all the comments we have received from WG since IETF 108 >> (most recent comments not inluded). Here are some explanations about how we >> address/consider >> >> these comments in version 07. >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. Comments from Greg Shepherd >> >> >> Section 2 Problem Statement >> >> >> - “IPv6 unicast technologies can support multi-point transport” >> seems not clear >> >> >> [New Version] This sentence has been removed >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 3.2 Naive IPv6 Model >> >> >> - “BIER is integrated into the IPv6 data plane” is not precise, could be >> considered to modify as “BIER header integrated into the IPv6 header” >> >> >> [New Version] Similar expressions are maintained in this version, >> including: >> >> >> “ The second conceptual model is an Integrated Model that integrates >> >> >> BIER as part of the IPv6 data plane, making it a "Layer-3 BIER" >> >> >> approach.” >> >> >> “In this model, BIER works as part of the IPv6 data plane.” >> >> >> This has been discussed among the authors. If we take it narrowly, “IPv6 >> data plane” may mean to look up IP routing table and find the next hop, in >> which case, >> >> BIER could not be treated as part of it; while if we take it broadly, >> “IPv6 data plane” may include all the forwarding behavior happening in IPv6 >> layer including parsing extension headers, in which case, BIER could be >> treated as part of it. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. Comments from Sandy Zhang: >> >> >> Section 2 problem statement >> >> >> - Not only non-BFR node scenario should be included >> >> >> [New version] It has been covered in the new version by >> >> >> >> “It may >> >> >> also be desirable to not use IPv6 encapsulation except when IPv6 >> >> >> tunneling (native or GRE/UDP-like) is used to transport BIER packets >> >> >> over BIER-incapable routers.” >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 3.1 >> >> >> - There is no fragmentation or IPSEC executed in BFR >> >> >> [New Version] >> >> >> An example has been added in section 4.2.1 to clarify the case and fix >> the comments. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 3.2 >> >> >> - Fast forwarding could not be supported if using IPv6 extension >> header >> >> >> - How to deal with the relationship with other extension header, >> e.g., fragmentation header >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> This will be defined in the solution document rather than the requirement >> document. >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. Comments from Jeffrey Zhang: >> >> >> Section 2 Problem Statement -> Request to remove/modify the descriptions >> that may be considered biased: >> >> >> - Inter-domain is not model specific. Reference to individual >> draft should be removed. >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> Descriptions about Inter-domain has been removed. >> >> >> - The descriptions of fragmentation is not reasonable because >> fragmentation/reassembly does not happen on each BFR when it is connected >> directly with >> >> another BFR. >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> Descriptions about fragmentation in section 3 has been removed. >> >> >> - IPv6 native functions should not be requested by Layer2.5 >> tunneling, which could be executed in IPv6 layer. >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> Descriptions about other IPv6 functions in section 3 have been removed. >> >> >> Section 4.1.6 Simple Encapsulation-> Unclear requirement item >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> This requirement has been removed. >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. Comments from Alvaro Retana >> >> >> Section 2 >> >> >> - Problem Statement should be straight forward >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> Problem Statement has been modified totally with help of Gyan and Jeffrey. >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 3 >> >> >> >> - Transport-Independent Model" is not in line with the layering >> model from rfc8279 >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> The layering of BIER defined in RFC8279 is not the same as it has been >> discussed in section 3, where layer 3/layer 2.5 means protocol layering of >> TCP/IP. >> >> >> - It seems that there is some Bias for native IPv6 Model >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> Section 3.1. Independent Model has been well modified by Jeffrey as the >> one of the main authors of the document of BIERin6. >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 4 >> >> >> - Three levels: required, recommended, and optional >> >> >> - Some mandatory requirements need no explanation, including: >> Support BIER architecture; Conform to existing IPv6 Spec; Support >> deployment with Non-BFR >> >> routers) >> >> >> - Some of the requirements are not clear, e.g., L2 Agnostic, >> Support Simple Encapsulation, Support Deployment Security >> >> >> - Some of the requirements are not included in RFC8279, e.g., >> Support inter-AS multicast deployment >> >> >> [New version] >> >> >> All the requirement items have been reorganized. Well known requirement >> is kept simple and optional requirement is justified with example. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:44 PM >> >> >> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net> >> >> >> Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Xiejingrong (Jingrong) < >> xiejingrong@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org; >> bier-chairs@ietf.org; bier@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana < >> aretana.ietf@gmail.com> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions >> >> >> >> >> >> The authors were ask to remove the comparison section. I'm asking you >> again. I'll wait for the next rev to comment. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:44 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang < >> zzhang@juniper.net> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Hi Gyan, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > A small clarification – while the requirements draft -07 currently >> >> >> >> > does have sections that briefly describe different models/solutions, >> >> >> >> > we have avoided discussing which one satisfies which requirements >> >> >> >> > intentionally (as the focus is on listing requirements). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > With that, I don’t think we’ve got a conclusion >> >> that “BIER-MPLS & >> >> >> >> > BIER-Ethernet, as it stands today has a MAJOR gap in being able to >> >> >> >> > support >> >> >> > SRv6 Service Provider core technology requiring an IPv6 data plane”. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Jeffrey >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Juniper Business Use Only >> >> >> > >> >> >> > *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> >> >> >> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 24, 2020 1:40 AM >> >> >> > *To:* Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> >> >> >> > *Cc:* Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; >> >> >> >> > >> >> draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org; >> >> bier-chairs@ietf.org; >> >> >> >> > bier@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> >> >> >> > *Subject:* Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Greg >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > With all do respect, the authors welcome the AD and Chairs criticism >> >> >> >> > and any feedback, however in this particular case with your response, >> >> >> >> > there seems to be a disconnect with the ML discussions we have had >> >> >> >> > over the last several months. Understandably, all of us here in the >> >> >> >> > WG realize the criticality of the BIER in an IPv6 environment, and >> >> >> >> > that BIER-MPLS & BIER-Ethernet, as it stands today has a MAJOR gap in >> >> >> >> > being able to support >> >> >> > SRv6 Service Provider core technology requiring an IPv6 data plane, >> >> >> >> > which will be the end all be all replacement for MPLS. It is critical >> >> >> >> > that the BIER WG come up with a solution(s) that supports an IPv6 data >> >> >> >> > plane for >> >> >> > SRv6 support. We all don't want BIER to die on the vine in a >> >> >> >> > technology graveyard with ATM, Frame Relay and the likes. We the >> >> >> >> > authors are all in agreement and running fast after that goal and >> >> >> >> > understand the AD & Chairs now emphasis on the requirements draft. We >> >> >> >> > are with you lock, stock and barrel. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The authors of the BIER IPv6 Solutions draft >> >> >> >> > “draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08”, >> >> BIERv6, referred to as the >> >> >> > “Integrated model”, authors myself, McBride, >> >> Xuesong & Jingrong >> >> >> > collaborated in a joint effort over a month timeframe with the authors >> >> >> >> > of the BIER IPv6 Solutions draft >> >> “draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-07”, >> >> >> >> > BIERin6, referred to as the Independent model , authors Jeffrey & >> >> >> >> > Sandy to come up with a holistic solution where both conceptual models >> >> >> >> > accurately addressed the problem statement as well as the requirements >> >> >> >> > to support IPv6 for SRv6 support. We wanted to make sure that we had >> >> >> >> > complete parity between conceptual models and relationships to the >> >> >> >> > problem statement and requirements list. All authors from both >> >> >> >> > solutions worked together to ensure we had all of our >> >> “i’s” >> >> dotted & >> >> >> > “t’s” >> >> crossed so to speak, putting our best foot forward with this rev 7. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I would like to point out that given the >> >> “Integrated model” BIERv6 >> >> >> >> > Solutions initial draft came out in April 2018, and the >> >> “Independent model” >> >> >> > BIERin6 Solution came out in October 2017. It is only since January >> >> >> >> > 2019 initial draft submission has the work to reverse engineer to come >> >> >> >> > up with the Requirements draft started a >> >> “post mortem” so to speak >> >> >> >> > after the Solutions had already been proposed. To that end in >> >> >> >> > IETF108, the requirements draft had positive feedback related to >> >> >> >> > Section 3 conceptual framework for the two solutions proposed. We are >> >> >> >> > all at a loss in understanding your comments as to removal of section >> >> >> >> > 3. In order to create a requirements draft as part of any basic >> >> >> >> > requirements analysis, you must have some idea or concept or inkling >> >> >> >> > of a solutions framework to graft & glean the list of requirements >> which otherwise is not possible in my mind >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
- [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Michael McBride
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Michael McBride
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)