IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 24 September 2016 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 C23AD12BD7D for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 0Sr02muMmBxC for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x232.google.com (mail-yb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (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 0DF1412BCC0 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x232.google.com with SMTP id d69so74138525ybf.2 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=B/L83uKfkW8mtu/n5Wo6POcIXwuSHzTRysSz5H32T6I=; b=mV25vNFmO6lKZyLDHV7Z5wZWRbFFoYPRH17nykrqNOiEzLjkPMlKgPLGLqPZHKDKNo g5RJhRypZNvC0ai26tineBLLThX0vmRp8gcvyqf65DA4q/OtHrM79EWYdSgpuB0wblQu 22rGt0/8XSA3vUgNIYYUyT4W/n90HK+nA/zPAX+QPdOy4yzoh3Ym3oc65G3YKazYq7KW DYvTtI8QHS08eX4aK51yKBUsADTgKS3tHnnUxTDPk6s/XQf7uNxiLcU4oL+Nm7nCLky0 mzaO1uJMFUUVEJsN6swIPdv38JGQyfmh70RlKmAylF6TMFoeeYbg+UF18lMWZR9Z4qud S4Cg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B/L83uKfkW8mtu/n5Wo6POcIXwuSHzTRysSz5H32T6I=; b=DAyOr3662vWVSllFUqD0vtAnXXHOL7qHuoRJqJrA4T8W6MoSkGSoqwa7GvUcioPaKn aoKFOK5u4oY9l2naZmNAR/tr77XE2j6PTjBgI1n78AqqMQR05OQUpdsvsbqQRINjNYaZ Ddkyyw0e9K+fPbNnbFvypnpbHSgOl9LwP9glJ9RwIUVEGZNe/txZn/Y5FWAitt7p04bi yNc+ow9mjoYszEblnJYxjlot8G7MvH+u/opWRxowmGcwcwvwY3xHH0I4Tu9NGBMznXWD sJ/r2T5UHqkWhwd5IpXqBbhXyHOTnRWm0oCgf1/G/ZyC0RoARhLlb+0ICsan1vhmgXjB Jrvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlgOZD5q1lbX3dsZ8ROBQLPYMu7I6AhRdySp17OnRSCX0X/DZIAwT32xBGR4sU/KNcGMnn/qSBVyEcU+A==
X-Received: by 10.37.209.132 with SMTP id i126mr4927182ybg.29.1474688516234; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.172.134 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB1DEE0@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB1DEE0@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:41:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmV85oPNBE32Qyy0Cg3Z0Bvv3N2A+FfukwRJChKj=bb64w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06b32e2a23ba053d38adb8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/Yxrajhb_WzEfN_9eVoIo491Xxmk>
Cc: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 03:41:59 -0000

Hi Xiaohu,
thank you for your thoughtful questions.
Ensuring that active OAM is in-band with data, i.e. is fate-sharing, being
monitored significantly simplifies defect localization.
For the case of MPLS encapsulation preserving IP header has no apparent
benefit as BIER header carries BFIR ID.
As RFC 7110 demonstrated, there are benefits of controlling path used for
Echo Reply. I think that in the future version we'll provide more details
regarding use of different Reply modes.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email