[Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch 1 WEEK

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Toerless and Jeffrey

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/

One more week of WGLC. Please read the latest rev and respond to this
thread w/wo support.

Chairs
(Shep)


On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Toerless,
>
> Thanks!
> I support moving this to the next stage.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:42:38PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Thanks Jeff
> >
> > I have now pushed out -05 with the answers and hopefully resolution to
> > your points in email below.  Biggest addition was a section about
> > reuse of BPs (without DNR) which came out of the confusion i think the
> > reuse in the ECMP example raised. I was afraid so far to explan that
> > as it may not be easy to absorb and ultimately is stuff only
> > controller developers need to understand, but hopefully useful.
> > And then of course the summary of BP optimizatins you asked for
> >
> > Diff from last version i sent you:
> >
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
> > **Araw.githubusercontent.com*toerless*bier-te-arch*master*draft-ietf-b
> > ier-te-arch-05.1.txt&url2=http:**Atools.ietf.org*id*draft-ietf-bier-te
> > -arch-05.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzH
> > OCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx41_jWX2At8V-$
> >
> > full -04 -> 05 diff:
> >
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=http:*
> > *Atools.ietf.org*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-04.txt&url2=http:**Atools.
> > ietf.org*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-05.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!!NEt6yMaO-gk
> > !VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzHOCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx41_jWancpziv$
> >
> > Comments inline below.
> >
> > Cheers
> >     toerless
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 07:52:59PM +0000, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
> > > I Thought u-turn is the most simple comparison leaf vs. non-leaf BFR.
> > >
> > > Zzh> The text in the email is seriously misaligned. Looking at the
> picture in the diff link, while you gave a U-turn example, though even if
> BFER2 is not connected to BFR2  but only connected to BFER1 (hence no
> U-turn), then BFER1 is still not a leaf BFER I suppose. That's why I said
> the first sentence of the above paragraph is enough to define Leaf BFER
> while the example itself is actually not needed.
> >
> > Argh... ok, had to fix two words, BFIR->BFER and left-hand -> right-hand:
> >
> > Consider how redundant disjoint traffic can reach BFER1/BFER2 in above
> > picture: When BFER1/BFER2 are Non-Leaf BFER as shown on the right hand
> > side, one traffic copy would be forwarded to BFER1 from BFR1, but the
> > other one could only reach BFER1 via BFER2, which makes BFER2 a
> > non-Leaf BFER. Likewise BFER1 is a non-Leaf BFER when forwarding
> > traffic to BFER2
> >
> > > Zzh> Additionally, in left part of the picture you added, if some
> failure leads to BFR2 to be only reachable via BFER1, then BFER1 is no
> longer a leaf BFER.
> >
> > Added sentence:
> >
> > <t>Note that the BFER in the left hand picture are only guaranteed to
> > be leaf-BFR by fitting routing configuration that prohibits transit
> > traffic to pass through a PE, which is commonly applied in these
> > topologies.</t>
> >
> > > I assume you don't reassign BPs when links go up and down.
> >
> > I didn't want to discuss that option in this document. Its obviously
> > perfectly feasible, but be yet a big amount of text (especially the
> > considerations how to do this make-before-break. Future doc.
> >
> > > > but subsequent polarization example confuses me. It seems that BP
> 0:6 is assigned to the routed adjacency BFR10 (which is actually talked
> about in Section 4.8).
> > >
> > > Section 4.7 does not mention "routed" at all, so there are no routed
> adjacencies at all used in 4.7. So i am not sure what you are confused
> about.
> > >
> > > Zzh> "The BIFT of each BFR are only populated with BPs that are
> adjacent to the BFR in the BIER-TE topology".
> >
> > Correct text from the introduction. Ok.
> >
> > > Zzh> Since the same 0:6 is in BIFTS of BFR1/BFR2/BFR3 (and I suppose
> in BFR4~BFR9 as well even though not drawn), I assumed it's for the "MP2P"
> routed adjacency to R10; though I then ruled that out - but I don't know
> what 0:6 represent now on BFR1, BFR2, and BFR3.
> >
> > Ah. Ok. I thought i could strip down the example to show only the
> > adjacencies relevant to the following discusion, but seemingly this
> > can introduce the confusion you have.
> >
> > So i completed the example with the BP assignment acoss all nodes, but
> > added text pointing to a new section further down to discuss the
> > re-use of BP for which thi picture is also an example.
> >
> > (check out the diff, new reuse text to long to copy inline).
> >
> > > The whole purpose of the ECMP BPs is of course to save bits, otherwise
> we'd give each link a separate BP, which would be 6 BP to reach to
> BFR4...BFR7 from BFR1.
> > >
> > > Zzh> The trouble I am having is that the same 0:6 is assigned to
> different things and it's present on all BFR1/BFR2/BFR3. It is perhaps an
> intentional smart design but I have not wrapped my mind around it. It's
> apparently different from the link bundle case, so better separate it out
> and elaborate it (including the DNR flag that might be needed here - If the
> packet arrives on BFR1 with 0:6, would the BP reset when it is sent to
> BFR2/3)?
> >
> > Yes, there was the bug of reusing BP 0:6 across sequential BFR along
> > the path, but now the example correctly reuses separate BP at
> > different stages of the paths (BP 0:6 on BFR1, BP 0:7 on BFR2/BFR3) and
> so on.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > > > 4.8.  Routed adjacencies
> > > >
> > > > If I understand it correctly, there is a BP assigned to L1/L2/L3
> > > > respectively (p2p link), and then there are BPs assigned to MP2P
> tunnels (routed adjacency from every BFR) to the L1/L2/L3 interface
> addresses and loopback addresses on BFR2/3.
> > >
> > > Ok that wasn't quite the read i expected. Let me clarify the
> text/picture:
> > >
> > >                    ...............
> > >          ...BFR1--...           ...--L1-- BFR2...
> > >                   ... .Routers. ...--L2--/
> > >          ...BFR4--...           ...------ BFR3...
> > >                    ...............         |
> > >                                           LO
> > >                     Network Area 1
> > >
> > > Assume the requirement in the above picture is to explicitly steer
> traffic flows that have arrived at BFR1 or BFR4 via a shortest path in the
> routing underlay "network area 1" to one of the following three next
> segments: (1) BFR2 via link L1, (2) BFR2 via link L2, (3) via BFR3.
> > >
> > > To achieve this, both BFR1 and BFR4 are set up with a forward_routed
> adjacency BitPosition towards an address of BFR2 on link L1, another
> forward_routed BitPosition towards an address of BFR2 on link L2 and a
> third forward_routed Bitposition towards a node address LO of BFR3.
> > >
> > > Does this clear ip the confusion ?
> > >
> > > Zzh> The picture is badly misaligned. I'll wait till 4.7 questions are
> cleared.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > > > If BFR2/3 are also BFERs, then they additionally will have BFER BPs.
> > > > On BFR1/4, the BIFT entries for the MP2P BPs for the
> L1/L2/L3/loopback interface addresses of BFR2/3 will use
> forward_routed(interface/loopback address). For a packet to be decapsulated
> on a BFER, there is a need for both the BFER BP and another BP
> (p2p/lan/hub-spoke/routed-adjacency) in the packet (the former is for
> decapsulation and the latter is for getting it there).
> > >
> > > This is not discussed in this section, but you are right - unless
> > > BFR2 or BFR3 is a leaf BFR. In that case, it would just leverage the
> one shared "leaf-BFR" BP, so they do not need a per-BFER BP for
> local_decap().
> > >
> > > Zzh> Right - shared leaf-BFR BP but still need that BP (the key is
> that we need a BP to get packet to a BFER and then a BP for decapsulation).
> >
> > You got it.
> >
> > > > If that???s the case, it???s worth point the above out.
> > >
> > > Hmm... The logic of BFER BPs is totally independent of the logic of
> forward_routed adjacency, so i would worry that repeating the explanation
> of BFER BPs would conflate the forward_routed explanation.
> > >
> > > Zzh> It's just that this is a place where all kinds of BPs are used so
> it's good to have a summary (could be a subsection 4.9).
> >
> > Yes, added such a summary. Pls. check.
> >
> > > > Actually, the reason that I thought this is MP2P is that 0:6 is
> present on R1, R2, and R3 (and more I assume) in Figure 12, but now I think
> it can???t be MP2P (so it is not correct to have 0:6 present on those
> routers ??? only the p2p tunnel head/tail should have the BP present in the
> BIFT). The reason is that if it were MP2P, any router getting a copy will
> send it to the endpoint of the routed adjacency, causing lots of duplicates.
> > > >
> > > > Am I getting this correct?
> > >
> > > I think you are still explaining from the misunderstsanding that the
> ECMP explanations where about routed adjacencies.
> > >
> > > I have now expanded the somewhat terse text in the BIFT table
> pictures, to make it clear that the ECMP is across multipe
> forward_connected adjacencies in the examples. For example, first BIFT
> picture:
> > >
> > >   BIFT entry in BFR1:
> > >   ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >   | Index |  Adjacencies                                           |
> > >   ==================================================================
> > >   | 0:6   |  ECMP({forward_connected(L1, BFR2),                    |
> > >   |       |        forward_connected(L2, BFR2),                    |
> > >   |       |        forward_connected(L3, BFR2)}, seed)             |
> > >   ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Of course, an ECMP adjacency can be across any type of adjacencies,
> but all the text/explanations used forward_connected, and now the pictures
> show that explicitly.
> > >
> > > Zzh> I can understand the multi-link case, but the multi-hop ECMP case
> (from BFR1 towards BFR10) is confusing me. It would help to give an example
> how it can be used, WITHOUT worrying about polarization.
> >
> > Please check -05 text that has the full set of BIFT listed now:
> >
> > There is  really nothing nothing unique in multi-hop ECMP for BIER-TE
> > that we do not also have in any other ECMP, except the conclusion that
> > we want to support fast HW hash mechanisms AND allow the controller to
> > set up non-polarized multi-hop ECMP AND be able to precalculate paths.
> > Hence the specification of ECMP adjacencies to have a controller
> > configurable seed.
> >
> > Btw: The picture is maybe unnecessarily large because i've used it for
> > 20 years to explain the same polarization issue for unicast vs
> > multicast, and for multicast only BFR10...BFR4 are relevant (ECMP of
> > the PIM/mLDP joins), whereas for unicast/BIER only
> > BFR1...BFR7 are relevant. But being symmetric, the picture makes it
> > clear its the same problem.
> >
> > > >    To inhibit looping in the face of such physical misconfiguration,
> > > >    only forward_connected adjacencies are permitted to have DNR set,
> and
> > > >    the link layer destination address of the adjacency (e.g.  MAC
> > > >    address) protects against closing the loop.  Link layers without
> port
> > > >    unique link layer addresses should not be used with the DNR flag
> set.
> > > >
> > > > It???s not clear how link layer address helps?
> > >
> > > I have expanded this to
> > > "link layer port unique unicast destination address"
> > >
> > > Aka: MPLS or ethernet have unique link layer destination destination
> addresses (label or destination MAC). If you think about incorrectly
> plugged HDLC links (such as old T1/T3/... links), they only have 2 generic
> addresses, if i remember 1 or 3 in the HDLC frame. So when you misplug one
> of those p2p cables wrong, the packets would be incrrectly received by the
> wrong receiver node and then DNR could cause persistent loops only solved
> by TTL.
> > >
> > > Zzh> "Consider in the ring picture that link L4 from BFR3 is plugged
> into the L1 interface of BFRa" - still not sure how label/mac helps here. I
> suppose the ring topology is discovered/verified by the control plane and
> when the miscalling happens then the ring will not include the BFR1/BFR2
> part and BFR3 will not have the DNR set? If ring discovery/varication is
> not done then perhaps we should point out that RPF based on link layer
> address is needed - the key is RPF (which needs unique link layer address)?
> >
> > Forget RPF. BIER(-TE) has no RPF (issues). Its just like unicast. RPF
> > is just a problem for receiver originated joins like in PIM/mLDP, but
> > not unicast/bier(-te)/RSVP-TE.
> >
> > Forward_connected is just like a unicast subnet adjacency to a direct
> > neighbor: Interface and L2 addresss of the destination.
> >
> > The controller (could be a human) "assumes" a particular physicial
> > topology, from telemetry/knowledge/whatever. It then calculates the
> > desired BIER-TE topology and pushes it down. This topology is meant to
> > be loop free of course wrt to the configured adjacencies.
> > In this BIER-TE topology, BFR3 will have a BP with the
> > forward_connected(L4, MAC-of-BFR2) adjacency.
> >
> > If the cable connecting to L4 is miswired, then BFR3 would still send
> > the packets to the MAC address of BFR2, but given how the cable
> > connects to some other node, these packets will be discarded by that
> > node. because they're just L2 unicast packets.
> >
> > I think this is equally true when we have normal BIER/MPLS enacp.
> > Those packets too are addressed to the unicast MAC address of the
> > neighbor.
> >
> > Now, if/when he controller recognizes that the physical topology has
> > changed, thats a completely different story and not addressed here.
> > Given how we assumed this was a cabling mistake, the controller would
> > probably only complain about the miswiring to operations but be happy
> > that the forwarding plane just makes packets fail instead of loop. If
> > this was a planned change process, then it will be similarily
> > convoluted as it would today be with rewiring cables in an
> > SR-MPLS/SRv6 topology and updating SIDs.
> >
> > > > Because the forwarding is different from BIER forwarding (because of
> [1] above), we might as well introduce an optimization here ??? for each
> BIFT, calculate the F-BM of the BIFT itself (the logical ???or??? of all
> the BPs presented in this BIFT) and then use (packet->bitstring &
> BIFT.F-BM) as the input to GetFirst/NextBitPosition(). That should skip
> many bits.
> > >
> > > Right. But i explicitly removed those optimizations (i had them in
> older draft versions) because the whole idea of this picture is solely the
> comparison with figure 4 of RFC8279.
> > >
> > > Zzh> I think it's worth point that optimization out; you can mark it
> optional if you want to emphasize the similarity to BIER forwarding, but
> since BIER forwarding does do the maskoff step, it is very efficient while
> BIER-TE forwarding does not it the maskoff step so this optimization is
> important.
> >
> > Ok. I simplified the text comparison BIER/BIER-TE wrt. to the FBM
> > rules [1] and [2] and added following paragraph:
> >
> > <t>In BIER, the order of BPs impacts the result of forwarding because of
> [1].
> > In BIER-TE, forwarding is not impacted by the order of BPs. It is
> > therefore possible to further optimize forwarding than in BIER. For
> > example parallelizing forwarding across multiple FPE cores or
> > distributed linecards does only need to examine an arbitrary subset of
> > BP and not evaluate the dependency between BPs.</t>
> >
> > > >    The following pseudocode is comprehensive:
> > > >
> > > > The above sentence reads a bit strange (or lacks some segue).
> > >
> > > I hope not, but maybe best left to a native english speaker
> (RFC-editor).
> > >
> > > The first (RFC8279) pseudocode was simplified. The second one is
> comprehensive. If not comprehensive, whats a good opposite of simplified ?
> > >
> > > Zzh> Perhaps "The above simplified pseudocode is elaborated further as
> following"?
> > > Zzh> Jeffrey
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > From: BIER [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> > > > on behalf of Toerless Eckert [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 23:38
> > > > To: Mike McBride
> > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; BIER WG; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Mike
> > > >
> > > > The authors also reviewed the document and concluded that it was
> > > > really hard to get into the document context because of too many
> > > > forward dependencies. We tried to fix this by adding two hopefully
> > > > good & basic examples into the Introduction section and using them
> > > > to also add a better definition of the term "BIER-TE Topology" in
> the Introduction.
> > > > Hopefully this makes readin the rest of te document smoother.
> > > >
> > > > Also improved text of Abstract and refined text compariing BIER-TE
> with SR.
> > > >
> > > >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
> > > > **Atools.ietf.org*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt&url2=https:**A
> > > > tool
> > > > s.ietf.org*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!8WoA6R
> > > > jC81
> > > > c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNV_eTUEh
> > > > $
> > > > <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
> > > > **Atools.ietf.org*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt&url2=https:**A
> > > > tool
> > > > s.ietf.org*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!8WoA6R
> > > > jC81
> > > > c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sNd1njcX
> > > > $>
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >     Toerless
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Mike McBride wrote:
> > > > > How about three? I support.
> > > > > mike
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:42 AM Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We cannot take two 'yes' votes and WG consensus.
> > > > > > Please, read and respond. If you don't support, then please vote
> as much publicly right here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Greg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Support:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I see great value in deterministic networks as well as IOT
> (with RPL).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> All the best,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Pascal
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > From: BIER
> > > > > >> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On
> > > > > >> > Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> > > > > >> > Sent: mardi 4 juin 2019 02:03
> > > > > >> > To: Greg Shepherd
> > > > > >> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > >> > Cc: BIER WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > +1
> > > > > >> > Obviously support as co-author.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:41:26PM -0700, Greg Shepherd wrote:
> > > > > >> > > Please read and respond to this thread w/ or w/o support.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker..ietf.org
> > > > > >> > > /doc
> > > > > >> > > /draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_s
> > > > > >> > > ercw ZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNV9eClBj$
> > > > > >> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/
> > > > > >> > > doc/
> > > > > >> > > draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanx
> > > > > >> > > s6vI b_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sD40kmtH$>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Vote ends 5 June 2019.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > Shep
> > > > > >> > > (chairs)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> > > BIER mailing list
> > > > > >> > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > > > >> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
> > > > > >> > > list
> > > > > >> > > info/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eE
> > > > > >> > > NOs4 l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
> > > > > >> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/
> > > > > >> > > list
> > > > > >> > > info/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6b
> > > > > >> > > oAAW 4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> > BIER mailing list
> > > > > >> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > > > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/li
> > > > > >> > stin
> > > > > >> > fo/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4
> > > > > >> > l_qd
> > > > > >> > sXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
> > > > > >> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/li
> > > > > >> > stin
> > > > > >> > fo/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW
> > > > > >> > 4nrq
> > > > > >> > ju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > BIER mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
> > > > > > nfo/
> > > > > > bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsX
> > > > > > F0Kw
> > > > > > ZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
> > > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
> > > > > > nfo/
> > > > > > bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju
> > > > > > 8UCL
> > > > > > OgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ---
> > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > BIER mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > > > bier
> > > > __;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82
> > > > cJLD
> > > > FFNT2WVXWX$
> > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > > > bier
> > > > __;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiu
> > > > Xc8Y
> > > > _6sKn2KoAT$>
> > >
> > > --
> > > ---
> > > [e-mail]
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BIER mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzHOCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx4
> > 1_jWV3YUA6D$
>
> --
> ---
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>