Re: [Bier] Comments on <draft-hj-bier-mldp-signaling-00>

Xiejingrong <> Thu, 18 July 2019 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1133120632 for <>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.631
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DS9NbC-F_Fsv for <>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EF76120463 for <>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8287BE4B53AE294CC701 for <>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:22:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:22:32 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:22:32 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:22:32 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:22:22 +0800
From: Xiejingrong <>
To: BIER WG <>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] Comments on <draft-hj-bier-mldp-signaling-00>
Thread-Index: AQHVPRgC3pDalx5MhUaWQCG3v6wi+g==
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:22:21 +0000
Message-ID: 217C555B-17AE-4905-A65A-5C5FED4A7960
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_217C555B17AE4905A65A5C5FED4A7960_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Comments on <draft-hj-bier-mldp-signaling-00>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:22:38 -0000

it's on draft-hb-bier-mldp-signaling-over-bier-00
sorry for the typo.
From:Xiejingrong <>
Date:2019-07-17 23:10:45
Subject:[Bier] Comments on

I have read the draft and think it looks far better by using multi-hop tLDP session than the complex mechanism that I had not understand well in previous draft.
some comments/questions below:

3.2. EBBR procedure method

   The Egress BBR (EBBR) is connected to the mLDP domain which the root
   of the P2MP or MP2MP LSP resides on. The EBBR should accept the tLDP
   session and assign a upstream assigned label for arriving FEC.

   The EBBR should follow the [RFC7060] procedures with following
[XJR] the following procedures follow 7060 or 7389 ?

   - The label assigned by EBBR cannot be Implicit Null. This is to
   ensure that identity of each p2mp and/or mp2mp tunnel in BIER domain
   is uniquely distinguished.

   - The label can be assigned from a domain-wide Common Block (DCB) [I-
   D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label], as well as upstream

   - The Interface ID TLV [RFC6389]includes a new BIER sub-domain sub-
   tlv (type TBD)
[XJR] this Interface ID TLV is carried in message from EBBR(BFIR) to IBBR(BFERs)?

   With same token the EBBR should track all the arriving FECs and the
   IBBRs that are generating these FECs. EBBR will use this information
   to build the bier header for each set of common FEC arriving from the
[XJR] How does EBBR track the IBBRs?
[XJR] Let me imagine:
(1) IBBR(BFER) receive the mLDP Mapping from downstream LSR, and send a xxx message to EBBR(BFIR).
(2) EBBR(BFIR) send a LDP Mapping message (with Upstream-Assigned Label Request TLV) to all its tLDP neighbors ?
(3) BFIR should tell the BFERs the upstrea-assigned Label, and the Sub-domain, and the BFIR-id at least I guess.
Is that right ?
What's the xxx message (in case the tLDP is static configured, in case the tLDP is dynamicly established)?
Thinking of the information need to carry in the LDP message, there will be MPLS WG be considered more.

4. Datapath Forwarding

4.1. Datapath traffic flow

   On BFIR when the MPLS label for P2MP/MP2MP LSP arrives a lookup in
   ILM table is done and the label is swapped with tLDP upstream
   assigned label. The BFIR will note all the BFERs that are interested
   in specific p2mp/mp2mp LSP (as per section 3.2). BFIR will put the
   corresponding BIER header with bit index set for all IBBRs interested
   in this P2MP LSP. BFIR will set the  BIERHeader.Proto = MPLS and will
   forward the BIER packet into BIER domain.
[XJR] is there a proper BFIR-id value to be mentioned ?