Re: [Bier] What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the requirements? //RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Thu, 26 November 2020 04:39 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 2494C3A0911 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:39:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 RsPMwH0J2pO4 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85D33A08B0 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id w4so619891pgg.13 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:39:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+C8N9RWWNypJv2eTUzTEs+hGFF4KAthdZ5zYTVdIFKY=; b=JrFDjmf4DqsAVemYN4AtKs6ukj4ll11ukltsJt/TH7ok42bkIcxV+qjHVz+kkgK24G GJHVpPQ6+/H1AIcHGqrlKZbvXZWSb60ynk9FaL1DM7Mp13mSNdA3EmwusKkBSyl0QKgC N9y5txWdKiCy1SEdKzE3Px+1J6dA4rrV52olGmHdb3fWF0NaKxtSjriLJKIOiwjhX6vj TIMJE71xykWZ0FJfV4+xZ/iSTBykOiZ8E85OPLsnjZ/q6pM+jS9OysK5SJSOSNTSduou AHe17O5OKHANNor4gDALz5Uj3WLN9i22MEshBi3/4IVGxILIxgxmIU4kTmlybcIpSRp1 mYQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+C8N9RWWNypJv2eTUzTEs+hGFF4KAthdZ5zYTVdIFKY=; b=HMcukMs5cX7IICuZuizwwMWITiZHcyg4R11fS1Gf1GU1buGbLwY/BOPGeMoV8GpOjJ k8HiJ2sHGCDniHVrWZsGVE8o7HWngMGbWZPiMlEeWyTEumQ/f1vEbe7A6uPIWq1NZLiU CjWHMz92KhFmzw+eM5EVkMHmqIdEHbgCJyY/B4Sdxq0N2ugcuuaUkg4wcpV3KkFwDREd 87Y/G4aAWZ4fxctIc0iYtZkk98yifecpGuG55tkux83BemHqOQUdEt0r/yojI2e1H7lp 8B2iRl33TAklExyheiHdQog71p75Ni6YhthKuSpPcYpmS7Za+0Oi43T1wdFB2x7o+fdb waLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533CTs+93fisvLZu283SDVgil6WCdzLi0fn7jHPOsabGbCaRYVoX d6kT+nPJiziQd/RN9+HEPf2Ptx9/5nj0NP8kEWg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPJXUBhRqcOzuBwlM6EstgY1jYpHW71FJpbCzye8jH0L6GlnMBd0igQDsKdQFDOJJIxaJkyompx3fNeN6qEFY=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:178b:: with SMTP id q11mr1444564pja.132.1606365553101; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:39:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d518b2ac16a2468e8aa80bf77d0bc5d9@huawei.com> <CABFReBrz+to4JPRxZzAykTbPyvsX=axMHhv2a5rghetnt9jNrg@mail.gmail.com> <368c96a825734b7e958e0c3f0af649f8@huawei.com> <MN2PR05MB5981A5FE43B26EB4DB701E85D4FA0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <ddf881b1f7ff4950a6a5bbeed3030384@huawei.com> <CA+RyBmXPdEYXRbvbJgz0FNCjoVK=oaaZ00hN5vaU7c2R+9CLJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXPdEYXRbvbJgz0FNCjoVK=oaaZ00hN5vaU7c2R+9CLJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 23:39:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3DN1tQvG1Zn2bxJf27_VA8wp3x8Zi0m9ov9JihjBpHmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>, "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002c0e6105b4fb20a2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/XNOL1-fw-mNYGJASLWt8ZGgzG2A>
Subject: Re: [Bier] What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the requirements? //RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 04:39:16 -0000

Hi Greg

I am going to start a new a new thread on this OAM topic so folks don’t get
confuse the OAM topic which is important as well with this contentious
requirements draft topic related to why underlying question as to why we
need IPv6 encapsulation to carry BIER as we have a solution that works
today with RFC 8296 Non MPLS BIER Ethernet next header 0xAB37 as well as
topic related to why we need BIERin6 as the L2 solution to carry IPv6
payload  is in RFC 8296.

Thanks

Gyan

This thread and the other requirements draft that have been ongoing since
the

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:11 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tianran,
> I just recently read both proposals - BIERin6 and BIERv6. Understandably,
> I was interested in how each solution handles BIER OAM.
> draft-zhang-bier-bierin6 explains that:
>    BIER has its own OAM function, so generally the IPv6 OAM function is
>    not needed.
> And I agree with that conclusion. BIER OAM will work because BIER header
> is used as defined in RFC 8296, including using OAM value in the Proto
> field.
> draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation states that:
>         How BIER-PING is supported in BIERv6
>         encapsulation without using this Proto field is outside the
>         scope of this document.
> That left me with many questions. Thus, from my point of view, BIERv6
> needs to demonstrate how BIER OAM, as defined in numerous WG drafts, works
> in BIERv6 domain. Without that, I cannot compare the two proposals fairly.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 7:50 PM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>
>>
>>
>> Bierv6 is a nice design. It works very well in IPv6 scenario.
>>
>> Given we already have Bierv6, I do not understand why we are still
>> arguing the requirement for Bier in 6.
>>
>> I just see no need for Bier in 6.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tianran
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzhang@juniper.net]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 25, 2020 10:14 PM
>> *To:* Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>om>; gjshep@gmail.com;
>> Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
>> *Cc:* BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>rg>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* RE: [Bier] What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the
>> requirements? //RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tianran,
>>
>>
>>
>> I had answered/countered every question/comment that Gyan/Jingrong
>> raised, some repeatedly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  Bier in 6 is just a wrong solution and direction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Love to hear your arguments for the above.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:01 AM
>> *To:* gjshep@gmail.com; Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
>> *Cc:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>et>; BIER WG <
>> bier@ietf.org>gt;; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* RE: [Bier] What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the
>> requirements? //RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
>>
>>
>>
>> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you want to stop valid comments and valid discussions?
>>
>> I think both Gyan and Jingrong just raised the key technique points.
>>
>> Bier in 6 is just a wrong solution and direction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tianran
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org <bier-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Greg Shepherd
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:16 PM
>> *To:* Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
>> *Cc:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>et>; BIER WG <
>> bier@ietf.org>gt;; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bier] What does BIERin6 propose to satisfy the
>> requirements? //RE: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
>>
>>
>>
>> Please try to keep comments on track and in-line with the thread.
>> Stand-alone questions like this are just digging up ground we've already
>> sowed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shep
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:27 PM Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <
>> xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> (to make clean, raise a new topic)
>>
>> I am confused too by the claiming a solution can do everything and it is
>> an "existing" solution, while requesting allocation of IPv6 Next Header /
>> IPv4 Protocol value which is non-trivial.
>>
>> We need to know, what does *the* BIERin6 draft propose, and how does
>> *the* BIERin6 draft satisfy the bier-ipv6-requirements.
>> Take req-1 as an example, suppose there are PPP-over-SONET(POS, RFC2615)
>> links in an IPv6 network, can the existing RFC8296 solve ? What does *the*
>> BIERin6 draft propose to solve ?
>>
>> Please note in my question the word *the* does not include anything that
>> RFC8296 can solve. Any existing RFC8296 solution is not belonging to *the*
>> BIERin6 proposal. Please tell us *the* BIERin6 proposal.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jingrong
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gyan Mishra [mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 9:34 AM
>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>
>> Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>rg>;
>> EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>cn>; Tony Przygienda <
>> tonysietf@gmail.com>gt;; draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements <
>> draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>gt;; gjshep@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>> About the two lingering points it does shed light on something that has
>> been disturbing me with the BIERin6 solution.
>>
>>
>> I thought about this some more and I think what creates a lot of
>> confusion in my mind with BIERin6 solution is the L2/tunnel component.
>>
>> As the main reason is that the L2/tunnel exists today with RFC 8296 “Non
>> MPLS BIER Ethernet” with the special allocated next header code point to
>> account for BIER next header 0xAB37.
>>
>> I honestly think the L2 should be removed from the BIERin6 draft so that
>> the optional IPV6 encapsulation is no longer “optional” in the draft as
>> that now is the draft.
>>
>> This also provides the “IPv6 encapsulation” commonality with BIERv6 at
>> least showing clearly that their is a strive for commonality and parity
>> between the two solutions.
>>
>> Also the “muddying” of the water is eliminated by removing L2 making the
>> solution crystal clear to operators.
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BIER mailing list
>> BIER@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Si-OI7n2KWZpZrAUn6G14gDTm6ICWah6GxBVRm00DTGFWCb0rs1cnBoFCUdkIsCQ$>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>> _______________________________________________
>> BIER mailing list
>> BIER@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD