Re: [Bier] comments for draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-04.txt

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:22:08AM -0700, Tony Przygienda wrote:
> Nagendra, IP-FRR is an interesting observation. There is no reason why LL
> cannot be protected by another non-LL nexthop but it may not be as natural
> as otherwise.
> 
> As I said, no problem in softenting the draft from SHOULD to something else
> as long we allow both LL and non-LL addressing.

> The driver to LL & NHOP=1
> was mainly to have people misunderstand that BIER can be forwarded all over
> the place by default which will lead to a valley of tears long term albeit
> it looks like a great idea first.

parsing failed. Can you plsease rephrase ?

> BIER is a switching fabric technology @
> L2.5 and not an overlay (and yes, it can be used that way but this is IMO
> jsut as far from BIER as BESS is from idr ;-)

See my other discuss point about the IMHO most 'useful' modes of
deployment/forwarding. Those would be good to discuss in the drafts.

Partial or full deployment of BIER with IPv6 encap:
  BIFR-to-BFER IPv6 encapsulated, per-BIER-hop rewrite of IPv6 header
  No differnce between partial or full deployment, 
     should work automatically calculating remote next-hop in partial.

Partial L2 BIER encap support
  Recommend not to use, but use IPv6 encap, as IPv6 encap/decap might more likely
  be impacting performance.

Full L2 BIER encap support
  determined by BFIR from IGP info, then ue L2 encap.


Cheers
  Toerless