IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Bier] draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-03

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Sat, 24 September 2016 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.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 E498B12BE6C for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-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 pIfKhf-TwfwN for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 839D812BE59 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CWU95761; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:21:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:21:27 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:21:24 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-03
Thread-Index: AdIWErn8Abf9fLzeSYWORUII+R312w==
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:21:23 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB1DEE0@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.184.181]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB1DEE0NKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0207.57E5F139.004D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 71d1de02fa5f28355ecc7c5579106354
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/V1a1hSKj9ZJ6Ek2DcCUB52qyutU>
Subject: [Bier] draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-03
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 24 Sep 2016 03:21:34 -0000

Hi co-authors of this draft,

I'm curious to know the rationale of the choice that " BIER OAM is defined in a way that it stays within BIER layer by following directly the BIER header without mandating the need for IP header." In other words, what's the real benefit of eliminating the IP header? Anyway, you would need IP protocol stack on each BFR, especially for reply mode 2 (i.e., Reply via IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet). In addition, I'm also wondering the necessity of Reply mode 3 (i.e., Reply via BIER packet). In other words, why does "the Initiator intend to validate the return BIER path" since the forward and return BIER paths between two BFRs may be totally asymmetric?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email