[Bier] comments on draft-zzhang-bier-tether-03

<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Mon, 30 September 2019 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 F0F1C1200FE for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 20:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ai5VGKBK3K-m for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 20:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EE16120019 for <bier@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 20:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 1C16A2FE675B01B67004; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:44:27 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 0EB4AF8F32508342762E; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:44:27 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x8U3iFhd057782; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:44:15 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:44:14 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:44:14 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5d917a0ebe145449
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201909301144147263233@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: zzhang@juniper.net, nils.warnke@telekom.de, ice@cisco.com
Cc: bier@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x8U3iFhd057782
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/etKpI3V8JaYXplUsDJ1XUAn9QVI>
Subject: [Bier] comments on draft-zzhang-bier-tether-03
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: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:44:33 -0000

Hi Jeffrey, co-authors,






I have read the newest version of draft "draft-zzhang-bier-tether". I think it's well written and helpful for BIER deployment.



And I have some comments:


1. In section 3 about the IGP/BGP signaling, because a Helper can help more than one non-BFR node, there will be more than one Helped Node sub-sub-TLV shown in the signaling. But one helped prefix MUST be shown only once.


So one sentence about it may be added in the section to make it more clear.






2. About the IGP SPF calculation procedure, IMO it's better to explain the algorithm modification of [RFC8279] section 6.9. Like:

This sentence may be added in Step 2:


But the node's prefix SHOULD be noted for Helping check.

A Step 4 may be added:


When BFR-B finds that one node signals as the helper of one or more helped nodes, BFR-B MUST check if the helped node is bypassed. If the helped node is bypassed, BFR-B SHOULD replace the existed tunnel from BFR-B that bypass the helped node with the helper node as the child node. If more than one helper existed for a helped node, the one which has the highest priority is selected.





Thanks,


Sandy