Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

Jingrong,

Sorry, no, it doesn't appear that much of the direction provided by WG
members on the list, nor the WG Chairs, nor the AD was heeded at all. A
requirements document needs to provide requirements - only. This doc is
still mistakenly written as a solutions comparison marketing doc - Section
3 does not belong in this doc. The purpose of the reqs doc is to provide a
guide for the WG to follow in determining 1) IF a new encap is needed, and
if so, 2) what any proposed solution needs to address that cannot be
addressed with the available tools today. ONLY then will this doc provide
the guidance we need to evaluate 1).

It's clear to me the current authors have little intention of following the
direction of the WG. At this time I recommend that we either:

1) Replace/refresh the authors with people willing to work with the BIER WG
members at large, and within the guidlines of the IETF.

or

2) de-adopt this document entirely. The WG as a whole can determine if I
wishes to restart this effort.

- Shep
(chairs)

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:48 PM Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Alvaro, Wg,
> Firstly thank you alvaro and the chairs for the clear directing!
> The new requirements draft had been posted, please read and see if the
> direction is correctly followed and if your comments are addressed.
> Your further comments, corrections, complaints, compliments are all
> welcome.
>
> Thanks
> Jingrong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 10:19 PM
> To: [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions
>
> Hello all!
>
> I am directing this message to the authors of the BIER in IPv6-related
> work.  I am also copying the WG because this work needs more engagement[*],
> making sure I don't miss anyone.
>
>   [*] More engagement in the form of substantive discussions from non-
>   authors, and diversity of affiliations.
>
>
> Some of you raised concerns to the IESG about the speed at which the
> IPv6-related work has been moving, and the ability to discuss it during WG
> meetings.  In response, I am providing my opinion of the current state and,
> after consultation with the Chairs, reinforcing the required steps to move
> any work forward.
>
> Note that my intent is not to insert myself in the discussions, but to get
> them back on track.  All decisions should be made by WG consensus as
> interpreted by the Chairs [rfc2418].
>
>
> I have done a preliminary/high-level review of the requirements document
> (see details below); I don't think it currently is in a state to provide
> adequate material for WG discussion.  Besides specific requirements, the
> text should include a clear justification for the WG to reach a consensus.
> The current version doesn't properly cover these aspects.
>
> The document points to the WG Charter in a couple of places as
> justification for the work.  Recommendation: Focus on the technical aspects
> and not whether something is in the Charter or not!  If there is WG
> consensus, a Charter can be amended to include new work.  On the other
> hand, while a Charter is used to provide scope and focus, it must not be
> used as justification for doing work in the absence of discussion and
> consensus.
>
>
> The critical step towards adopting a solution (or solutions) is engaged
> discussion of the requirements.  After looking at the document (comments
> below), I don't think it provides a good base for analysis.
> The expectation is for the requirements to be clear, specific, measurable,
> and to justify their applicability in the solution.
>
> In consultation with the Chairs, we expect a revised requirements document
> *before* IETF 109.  As I mentioned above, more engagement is needed in its
> development.  Ideally, the text will be discussed on the list as it
> evolves.  If a live discussion is required, the Chairs will organize one
> (an interim meeting, if there is enough time before IETF 109).
>
> Greg is the Chair responsible for this process.  [Side note: Tony has
> decided to remove himself as co-author of one of the proposals.  His
> comments will be considered as coming from a WG participant.]
>
>
> If anyone has concerns about this message, please contact me directly.
> Again, I won't participate in the WG discussions, but (if needed) may
> provide additional feedback related to my review of
> draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-06 (below).
>
>
> Thanks!!
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
>
>
> Review of draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-06
>
> This is an informal review.  While I expect this document to serve as a
> discussion point for the WG, and for it to *not* be published as an RFC, I
> have strong concerns about its contents.
>
> Note that the intent of providing a review at this point is to aid in
> progressing the IPv6-related discussion.  Any consensus on the specific
> requirements should come from the WG, guided by the Chairs.
>
> Consider all my comments as my personal opinion.
>
>
> ===
>
> In general, the requirements listed are either too vague or not well
> justified.  The objective "to help the BIER WG evaluate the BIER v6
> requirements" cannot be met unless there is clarity that can lead to
> engaged discussion.
>
>
> The document starts by explaining the problem space (from the
> Introduction):
>
>    As clarified in the working-group, "BIER natively in IPv6" means BIER
> not
>    encapsulated in MPLS or Ethernet.  This may include native IPv6
>    encapsulation and generic IPv6 tunnelling.
>
>
> I didn't look at the archive, but I'm sure the WG can do a better job!!
>
> This description is vague (""...natively in IPv6" means BIER not
> encapsulated in MPLS or Ethernet"), recursive (native "may include
> native") and confusing (native "may include native...and...tunnelling
> [sic]").
>
> Note that the Problem Statement itself ("to transport BUM packets, with
> BIER headers, in an IPv6 environment.") is straightforward -- the
> expectation of what is required as a solution is not.
>
>
> Two conceptual solution models are presented.  The description of the
> "Transport-Independent Model" is not in line with the layering model from
> rfc8279.  In the best case, the terminology doesn't match; but I think that
> the description might introduce new concepts.  Note also that the statement
> that "BIER-MPLS could use this approach directly since BIER-MPLS is based
> on MPLS" seems to contradict the definition of "natively in IPv6".
>
> The description of the "Native IPv6 Model" gets a slightly different
> treatment; for example, it includes benefits.  Note that this model also
> mentions "a trusted IPv6-based domain" while comparing the model to SRv6,
> *and* talking about a "wider inter-AS scope".  These seem to be
> contradictions as a trusted domain is typically aligned to a single
> administrative entity [rfc8402].  Again, the terminology may not be in
> alignment...or more discussion may be needed on the scope.
>
>
>
> On to the requirements.  As far as requirement levels go, I recommend that
> you use three levels instead of two: required, recommended, and optional.
> The level should be justified depending on the potential deployment or
> solution model.
>
>
> Some of the mandatory requirements listed are obvious and probably don't
> need even to be mentioned.  That is the case for:
>
> 352     4.1.2.  Support BIER architecture
> 361     4.1.3.  Conform to existing IPv6 Spec
> 368     4.1.4.  Support deployment with Non-BFR routers
>
>
> Some of the requirements are not clear -- they need a better description
> and clear justification.
>
> 345     4.1.1.  L2 Agnostic
>
> 347        The solution must be agnostic to the underlying L2 data link
> type.
> 348        The solution needs to support P2P ethernet links as well as
> shared
> 349        media ethernet links without requiring the LAN switch to
> perform BIER
> 350        snooping.
>
> Agnostic to the L2 data link, but also needs to support specific
> topologies.  That is a contradiction.  Also, where is "BIER snooping"
> defined?
>
>
> 376     4.1.5.  Support inter-AS multicast deployment
>
> 378        Inter-AS multicast support is needed for ease of provisioning
> the
> 379        P2MP transport service to enterprises.  This could greatly
> increase
> 380        the scalability of BIER, as it is usually considered to be
> suitable
> 381        only for small intra-AS scenarios.
>
> rfc8279 talks about a single BIER domain.  There is no discussion about
> BIER domains in the context of inter-AS operation in this draft or
> draft-geng-bier-ipv6-inter-domain.  Again, in the best case, we have a
> terminology mismatch. Still, it is not clear if the text proposes new
> functionality -- and using draft-geng-bier-ipv6-inter-domain as the base
> for a mandatory requirement doesn't seem correct without WG consensus.
>
>
> 383     4.1.6.  Support Simple Encapsulation
>
> 385        The solution must avoid requiring different encapsulation
> types.  A
> 386        solution needs to do careful trade-off analysis and select one
> 387        encapsulation as its proposal for best coverage of various
> scenarios.
>
> Based on the description of "natively in IPv6", it seems like anything
> that is "not encapsulated in MPLS or Ethernet" should be ok.  What is the
> justification behind one encapsulation?  It sounds like this requirement
> opens the door to multiple solutions, each with different encapsulations --
> doesn't that contradict a mandatory requirement of one?
>
>
> Finally, we find the security requirement:
>
> 389     4.1.7.  Support Deployment Security
>
> 391        The proposed solution must include careful security
> considerations,
> 392        including all that is already considered in BIER architecture
> RFC8279
> 393        and RFC8296, and other security concerns that may raise due to
> the
> 394        addition of IPv6.
>
> I want to highlight the obvious nature of "must include careful security
> considerations", which is a documentation issue -- there are no specific
> security requirements on the solution itself?  No particular mention of any
> security aspect.  What is the technical need?  :-(
>
>
> The optional requirements don't fare much better.  In general, please
> clarify and justify them.
>
> Some of the optional requirements seem to be associated with unexplained
> scenarios.  For example, the support for MVPN or IPSEC...and the specific
> need to forward "in hardware fast path".
>
> Others seem to make improper assumptions (for example, as far as I know,
> there is no existing standard OAM method) or suggest potential enhancements
> ("enhance the capability of BIER leveraging the BIER-MTU"
>  ??).
>
>
> In summary, the list of requirements presented is not clear or adequately
> justified.  It is not conducive to a WG discussion about the requirements
> themselves...much less about potential solutions.
>