Re: [Bier] WG adoption call for draft-chen-bier-frr-02

Michael Menth <> Tue, 16 March 2021 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1FF3A006A for <>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A08GxID98d8t for <>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 04:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:7c0:300c:3105::8602:5d5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BE863A0061 for <>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 04:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF01520AC4E9 for <>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:11:16 +0100 (CET)
References: <> <>
From: Michael Menth <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:11:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WG adoption call for draft-chen-bier-frr-02
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:11:26 -0000

Hi Tony, all,

Am 16.03.2021 um 11:08 schrieb Tony Przygienda:

> I think it's a good addition within the architecture for the case IGP is
> not used for signalling, e.g. when controller or static programming.

Right. The solution may make sense if the routing underlay does not
offer FRR capabilities.

> The draft must however explain in what scenarios it is used and quote
> the according IGP drafts to guarantee loop-free behavior (well, BIER
> will tie-break loops but we'll have 1x microloop & possibly not deliver
> payload if BIER FRR is not properly computed/intsalled). With that the
> draft should also pay attention to how the function is deployed/updated
> network-wide if IGP is not present

I agree. in the absence of an IGP, the "native BIER-FRR on bier layer"
must be set by a controller.

So, below the line, an applicability statement would be helpful. What
are those cases?
- IGP running but without FRR on the routing underlay?
- No IGP and no FRR on the routing underlay?

However, if the controller takes care of BIER-FRR, what could be reasons
for missing FRR on the routing underlay? If there is a FRR on the
routing underlay (also provided through a controller), tunnel-based
bier-frr solves the problem in a transparent way.

BTW, we studied protection variants for controller-based infrastructures
(for routing underlays, not for BIER). Challenge is to keep state low.
LFA-based solutions help a lot and outperform others. 100% protection is
possible with only little additions. Results are available: (under



> thanks
> -- tony
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:41 AM <
> <>> wrote:
>     A 2-week WG adoption call begins for the following draft:
>     <>
>     Please indicate your support or objection by March 30th, 2021.
>     Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware
>     of any IPR that applies to this draft.
>     Thanks,
>     Sandy (As WG secretary, on behalf of Greg/Tony)
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list

Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505
fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220