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

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

Emmm, then my question is why we need the same function at different layers?
Can we just choose one?

Tianran




________________________________

Sent from WeLink
发件人： xiao.min2<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人： Tianran Zhou<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送： zzhang<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;bier<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
主题： Re:[Bier] A comment about draft-xzlnp-bier-ioam
时间： 2022-03-21 09:31:05

Hi Tianran,

Generally speaking that's because they (IPv6, MPLS, BIER) are different layers, as indicated in Jeffrey's GDF draft.
Specifically, my personal criteria is that whether this layer would affect packet forwarding, e.g., SFC NSH layer would, so there is an adopted NSH IOAM draft (draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh), BIER layer is similar. For other layers that wouldn't affect packet forwarding, e.g., Geneve layer, the advantage to have IOAM over it is not clear to me.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min

------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：TianranZhou
收件人：肖敏10093570;zzhang=40juniper.net;
抄送人：bier;
日 期 ：2022年03月19日 21:58
主 题 ：Re: [Bier] A comment about draft-xzlnp-bier-ioam
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

I have concern about so many options for the same functionality.
Especially, there’s already IOAM encapsulation for MPLS and IPv6. Why we need another encapsulation in BIER layer?
As far as I understand, BIER will always be used with MPLS or IPv6.
Tianran
Sent from WeLink
发件人： xiao.min2<[e-mail]>
收件人： zzhang=40juniper.net<zzhang=[e-mail]>
抄送： bier<[e-mail]>
主题： Re: [Bier] A comment about draft-xzlnp-bier-ioam
时间： 2022-03-19 14:33:01
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：'[e-mail]';[e-mail];
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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier