Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09

Tony Przygienda <> Fri, 27 November 2020 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7EC3A0D73 for <>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:11:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHsScPEs5QyV for <>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:11:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AE5C3A0D6E for <>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r9so3270015ioo.7 for <>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:11:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9d0Z0ru0Qc9irAvmJu0ImG8Qi9NukxLHjOcfpUMLMuk=; b=gfe+/6A3VNgfETkWizELgytEnqs4TtZGCgNhifMcsCp47PtUkxjtDRIgMIwpRshswN krShicxVwFxvfpzCzz5WzpVnOjx77CWak9PPYTMrBNenmxGVPslxxfkrRg6dNDei6s0D ffbTGskC1TgkHuwA4aKJ8fmAq3PeaEJpHt7e64gWS8+oZv/yykaihDyDYAU0rb/fWEbX rH0Nc99GwbaIIf0/yXOKESF92x566QFICjwUI94ptiJPiAFD3HfWfGwNryJFsBWg4eji e/cascg7LD5i9pF7zVh8jJtnohzZBbnJtdLq9XHRM/u/ZMl4CJjT5RV8i/TLNQgUZHsP xz8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9d0Z0ru0Qc9irAvmJu0ImG8Qi9NukxLHjOcfpUMLMuk=; b=M2YvK3SkjoPFqhGmZ2WMMaWX/zdD8H9xRDBgiJZPrTHRJHxh2KIcYfAYZFSzyBPldF XzV4ejCf21+WPTMmJyfBwgABm1ENvlP6YkQ7taL5tdpLT0NFzet48SZXyVeKrlJYkFMS rLgwTq3Tr8Bbx+A1O4E9QvmC55BL9fCF75eg/9wRBRPem9QXmwT+bRsNtKtuDXQ9CFl7 yV7kGnQxL2Rg/eCZq2z5UZuyIgvHoOYM2+xavYqao+xVZnIt185SoTtU80u5Tq268vfW Be94AdMWS7jss3P9knNS9EEV57yoL6zBMEr3DDIeVTnomtRo+VAka29SRHFKfR15Locw mMQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532c8AlaxDxu8W5dEox47QRD6WFz8jHs79HCC8Nebr5mGALuqhGc gIvoWGR1Nk/zydzuCcSn6CFfRlmXaplC4AaUq0Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyiO9R7VC7DyGm+40ERl9rr4/qwcPO11LkpXpOjSOmlkPW1nBP03oK2+pqUoInyD5avj6Vo/rnwx7vtDJZCwnk=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8617:: with SMTP id f23mr4129143iol.174.1606439470209; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:11:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <02fd01d6c3f5$a8f23de0$fad6b9a0$> <> <033a01d6c410$92e413f0$b8ac3bd0$> <> <03c201d6c44f$478cd240$d6a676c0$>
In-Reply-To: <03c201d6c44f$478cd240$d6a676c0$>
From: Tony Przygienda <>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:10:34 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Adrian Farrel <>
Cc: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <>, Greg Shepherd <>, BIER WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f99d6e05b50c5581"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 01:11:13 -0000

<as individual>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:53 PM Adrian Farrel <> wrote:

> Thanks Jeffery,
> I think our discussion forks.
> In one direction Tony says (possibly) don’t worry about legacy transit
> routers because we shouldn’t be tunneling through them anyway.
> In the other direction we worry about legacy routers, and here you are
> suggesting we should hope that they are legacy-but-modern 😉 That doesn’t
> seem to work out for us because **if** we need to tunnel through non-BIER
> routers we should probably assume that they might be old enough to not be
> considered modern.
> I do like your answer that if the BIER header is encountered as payload it
> will not be hashed because of the first nibble. I’d missed that and it
> handles the case of native encapsulation.
> But I think that even legacy IPv6 routers that do ECMP are capable of
> walking the extension headers until they find a header that is a known
> protocol or until they find one they can’t parse. (But I may be wrong here.)
> Now, we have got diverted (again) into discussions of what we can and
> can’t do with different solutions. We need to come back to the requirement:
> Do we need to be able to tunnel through legacy routers? I am sure I hear
> Tony saying “no, that is explicitly excluded”.

I wish we couldn't but reality will be, people will throw tunnels multiple
hops (and architecture allows that to deal with non-BIER HW inbetween)

> If the answer is “no”, let’s capture that in the requirements doc.
> If the answer is “yes” then we have a second question…
> Do we need to provide ECMP in that tunnel?

well, it's IPv6 ECMP so who are we to argue how they do it. We should od
the best we can to support v6 ECMP AFAIS but we don't have in BIER anything
predictable but entropy field.

> If the answer to that is “no”, we’re done.
> But if the answer here is “yes”, we have to ask…
> Is it enough to rely on the flow label (and src/dst), or do other fields
> need to be available.

right, so what's your take here? BIER doesn't offer anything except an
entropy field and that's what we can provide. encaps'ing it in UDP just
oget 5 tuple sounds desperate and pretty dirty (think vxlan) and what
happens if we carry native ETHER or MPLS inside, parsing into the BIER
paylod to figure out WHAT protocol is carried (v4, mpls or so) and then
into that is possible but sounds like a really, really, really deep silicon

what you're aiming at, Adrian?

-=-- tony