IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com> Sat, 24 September 2016 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <naikumar@cisco.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 1945512BDAF for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.836
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 Pu2nL522G2tQ for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED8112BDAE for <bier@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14611; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1474719971; x=1475929571; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=SglCucxjzaWoDAtpL2MVgviuVhVvQNMBri2abYwRA4g=; b=FQorCbRO6Gy5jYCuuz7QD6B07SGB4v3Dsb0in77ZxDn07RNteXgWKRoj fxrOEKDBFjtGIYLLyVKCplnOJwTTEjslO9i1rIv4umrdtol9ca46FLFKU IQl5U9IagjyQXHB2R089fUVX+cNdax0k8Ry5uNJihNbL1ULrqgcyKz67H o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BRAQBscOZX/4cNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgwc0AQEBAQEeV3wHjSyfAoc3hRCCBBkBCoV6AhyBOTgUAQIBAQEBAQEBXieEYQEBAQQBAQEqOgcLEAIBBgIRAwECKAUCAh8GCxQGAwgCBAENBYgxAxcOk0CdIAiJAg2DQgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFiwuCR4IUCRaCSoJeBZQehSM1AYxvgniPa4hchA+DewEeNoUFcoRFK4ECfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,387,1470700800"; d="scan'208,217";a="150755728"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Sep 2016 12:26:07 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u8OCQ7qk006278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:26:07 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 08:26:06 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 08:26:06 -0400
From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] 答复: draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-03
Thread-Index: AQHSFhlbKtokhdmK90GlPZeJT6VzpKCIkWoA
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:26:06 +0000
Message-ID: <D40BE7D1.1887D4%naikumar@cisco.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB1DEE0@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmV85oPNBE32Qyy0Cg3Z0Bvv3N2A+FfukwRJChKj=bb64w@mail.gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB1DF43@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB1DF43@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.7.151005
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.52.80]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D40BE7D11887D4naikumarciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/gHmVNhDkmckuqRk-sWb-xB_jmvc>
Cc: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Bier] 答复: 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 12:26:13 -0000

HI Xuxiaho,

As Greg mentioned, the basic intention is to have it in-band to data traffic and avoid any other layer dependency if and when BIER layer in itself can handle it. BIER header carries sufficient information that can be used for OAM request/response and so we leveraged it and avoid depending on other layer.

Thanks,
Nagendra

From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>>
Date: Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 12:08 AM
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Cc: "bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>" <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Bier] 答复: draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-03

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your response.

Although BIER has the BFIR-id, it seems much simpler and consistent to keep the request and reply message within the same format.

If I understand RFC7110 correctly, it’s only applicable in the directional LSP case. However, is there any directional path concept in the BIER case?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2016年9月24日 11:42
收件人: Xuxiaohu
抄送: bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [Bier] draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-03

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<mailto: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<mailto:BIER@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email