Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Thu, 19 November 2020 17:22 UTC
Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.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 47AC63A0E26; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:22:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 u1G1Gd42T-dh; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:22:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 034FA3A1129; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id k27so8982337ejs.10; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:22:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=W62SQ3Pa3unQlF/H5qJz/v+v+w5fYXtRAnfXB9AD2lQ=; b=INucK0H3XbepMs1oYdRbzUEJmSws1DhTOvKq4bkk6/7NIqNpwRC2ZM+c6nqNQPrKnI fwm7f1ocn+djffGerPmCuKC2nPTD7tTRmwSShV5EM9mTGd7Oypo1ZYUiw8fnTdL6cfyU 3/gss4JNLvkseC984v6lhPEA49u/24XMqD3OmEtCHlJRM2Xc4x3ruoGk7Fv1xQNxXHbh 4NPdQUbhcy20NFPR5aL41fKkhF02VP4hTfYhQW2us6rwlQY5lRHLi8Flf4B+4J0WJ+Ss HFEJ1IfOXarw+JQ68r/fuipnZtbuadcjRw3c0yAANtrqsGuBMMjSQoYmPQLlMGJET90I xbTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W62SQ3Pa3unQlF/H5qJz/v+v+w5fYXtRAnfXB9AD2lQ=; b=JOVAHE5SXHHmpd04nlR36E0QKg7EiFAiaGjr4dMOP9hpD2bNtmz0H6AeG/3YdyNXUB inSXJNcK1z1iMIthey9OZ3zlF8icoJ3exSPWTEW2Fvf0Bc1qf2rOdSL6XJw7Y5enObm6 hDNQFZrJnPZjW60OxBw7pxeZx8tKm1R1INrbD7dUuZjXCH1Ju+x6Gjs/1+F3B4ZmEjwJ aOADV4olRx6PXus+GESCKQ9x7MvjmtAlMIsXFUwPtJKVUneLQg6eRwleSzy5IIbQZI4+ e0YOG28LuuxCYpXMcxJ1lzQN2V0+P28w1A6mGJinTSQ1QNPZHMKPdRE5qsqe1EQ/t4PL GADw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5308lt+SSs/gq7H/+Xq2NeWCIBhiMouwfC2n1y+IfyDrdF1xUYp1 9xeVph1f9ZH5b4r0HAjVF0LOM2tb5L9Smsp2B7Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNVP0+vhyXFrQmfHuLAheD8u3j2QchB6Spl6AP+9sDD9gcQuqWfILmJlktgWKqnhJ3nFvwvn/ccxvRRhxNrqI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:d790:: with SMTP id pj16mr3533835ejb.125.1605806535179; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:22:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV0aZRqXP2wAweEktsibTYpHqHhDB9OTPkO+1JmyOb7-gA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV0aZRqXP2wAweEktsibTYpHqHhDB9OTPkO+1JmyOb7-gA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:22:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CABFReBoFMZwcPrROMB=RbE60TsP4uajUERbE7MVTQD9AjwJ4ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements <draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements@ietf.org>, "zhang.zheng" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001b852b05b478f862"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/im1rf02rpfOhXVvG6Y8xLNzOX48>
Subject: Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:22:50 -0000
GS - inline: On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:14 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote: > All > > I would like to thank the Greg, Tony and Alvaro on their pointers and > guidance this morning to help move the ball forward with the requirements > draft. > Thank you for your help. > What I heard from Greg which rang out loud and clear and I mentioned to > the requirements authors that today we have BIER MPLS where the BIER header > is encoded into MPLS label stack layer 2 1/2 and we also have non MPLS BIER > Ethernet ether type 0xAB37. > GS - No, the BIER header is NOT 'encoded' in MPLS. MPLS encapsulates the BIER packet. Yes, the outer label included BIER specific information (Set-ID) with the intent of streamlining the forwarding process but without creating a dependency. We mirrored the format for Eth encap to ensure a single header format for the BIER architecture standard. It's important to mention there that the process to get to this point involved a 3-day design-team meeting where we worked hard, transparently and together and managed to conclude with a solution which resolved any conflict, satisfied everyone's concerns, and resulted in a clean, consistent message from a Working Group that was working under the 'experimental' banner. We moved from 'experimental' to standards track by listening to all the reasons we were started out as 'experimental' in the first place - ie This is the forwarding plane and will require new HW so the work from the WG must justify a new forwarding model and produce clear standards to follow. > So why do we need non MPLS BIER encapsulation in an IPV6 environment as > that IPv6 environment can be supported by non MPLS BIER Ethernet. The case > and point here is that eventually just as ATM and Frame Relay now live in > the technology graveyard so will at some point in time as SRv6 matures will > become the end all be all “core transport” mechanism for all operators. > GS - This is an opinion and not a technical argument. BTW, it is MY opinion that the largest early adopters for BIER will be financial networks, and more specifically financial trading floors. These networks are dedicated, high-speed, multipoint networks that will never adopt SRv6. Remember the IETF is to create standards that work best for everyone, not just to solve our individual network issues or vision. > So that being said we need a another encapsulation method to carry BIER , > and per RFC 8296 that gap is filled with Non MPLS BIER Ethernet > encapsulation today which will work for future SRv6 transport once MPLS > goes by the wayside. > GS - Just for clarity, RFC8296 works today regardless of any perceived transport wars. That's because a proper layered architecture avoids layer dependencies. > At the beginning of the presentation Greg corrected me and stated that > that after the BIERin6 independent model draft was published, that the > requirement draft came about to build a set of requirements as to the “why” > we need BIER to work in a non MPLS BIER in an IPv6 environment when we > already have the BIER Ethernet encapsulation that fits the bill and works. > GS - Not exactly... Let me clarify: BIERin6 first published in Oct 2017. I think the primary interest at the time was Homenet. The WG had no issues with the solution, but then neither had many members stepping up to help. Our AD's (and through extension the IAB) ingrained in us the need to remain diligent in the publication of our standards and only progress work that remained consistent with our existing work and showed community support. The first was true, the second was a little slight at the time. April 2018 - the BIER Encap (misnomer) draft was published. It was pointed out from the beginning that there is a stark difference between encap and encode and that the WG has already published standards for encode. So the question was asked, why do you need a new encoding and encap. The answer given at the time was that there was a need to address non-BIER routers in the network and that this solution would be transitional. The WG pushed back that ANY transition mechanisms MUST NOT require HW changes. We also heard things like: "integrated into IPv6" - not true, it's merely BIER information encoded into extension headers. Operationally this is identical to BIERin6 encap, except that the former would require new HW, something our AD's made clear needs to be justified before progressing. "fast-path" - not true. I/We continued to ask questions trying to understand what benefits could be implied by encoding the BIER header into an IPv6 extension header rather than to just encap the BIER packet? And ultimately what is to be accomplished with any new encap now that we have RFC8296? The WG decided we needed a problem statement and requirements draft to guide any work in this space. The reqs draft was heavily weighted by BIEREncode draft authors and showed significant effort to direct the conversation. The WG was largely silent on any support either way. Mike came to me frustrated that nobody is stepping up to help. My reply was that if the WG doesn't show interest in the work, maybe that's your answer. Since then, more authors have been added. > So that’s the million $$ question we are trying to solve here with the > requirements draft. > GS - Yes, but redefined as per my explanation above. > As for the IPV6 6MAN questions, I was brought on board by Mike McBride as > the IPv6 SME as well as multicast SME - but point being member of 6MAN for > many years so a go between liaison with 6MAN related to any questions > regarding following the IPV6 specification for extension header usage per > RFC 8200. Both solutions drafts had been reviewed by myself and 6MAN and > no technical issues were found regarding the solutions. > GS - Thank you. > Alvaro mentioned as far as the list of requirements that they were fairly > basic but maybe needed some more meat behind it such as the “support > various L2 link types” but we did not specify. In previous versions we > stated L2 agnostic and then switched to various but being vague on which > L2. Alvaro also mentioned why OAM should be a requirement. We may want to > add a sentence on justification as to why we picked BIER IPv6 requirements > as required versus optional. > > We need to add some more meat in the introduction or maybe even a separate > section as to what gap is being filled by non MPLS BIER in IPv6 environment > using IPv6 encapsulation and encoding the BIER header versus Non MPLS BIER > Ethernet. Also maybe use the requirements section to see if a new > requirement that maybe a gap that is not covered by non MPLS BIER Ethernet > that can be covered by non MPLS BIER in an IPv6 environment. > > At the end of the call when we rolled through the last two drafts and went > into overtime I heard the ask for call for adoption for BIERin6 independent > model. > GS - Both v6 draft presentations asked for adoption. One of them had technical arguments for doing so. The other was list of grievances. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-bier-bierin6/ > > I would not think we are ready to adopt any non MPLS BIER in IPV6 > environment solution if we still do not have the requirements set as to the > gap that is being filed and problem being solved that cannot be done today > with non MPLS BIER Ethernet. > GS - Agree. > The flip side of the comment above is that if we are ready to adopt and we > decided we can skip answering the “why” questions, so then do we need the > requirements draft at all if that’s the case as we have made the decision > to go with a single solution and are closing the door on any other > options. If the latter then we hang tight on any adoption of any solution > and wait till the requirements draft is completed and adopted followed by > moving forward with adopting any solutions. > GS - Agree. And my suggestion for new authors on the reqs draft still stands. I'm not demanding, I'm suggesting, based on the document's history. Your presentation of the history of the draft made it clear that there has been little direction, less clarity, and potentially an excessive amount of motivation to justify one solution over the other, leaving us with the mushy reqs draft we have today. Let's get this draft right, then we will have the guidance to address any potential solutions. Thanks, Greg > Kind Regards > > Gyan > > > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > > > *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD > >
- [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 peng.shaofu
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Michael McBride
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Loa Andersson
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Michael McBride
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-09 Gyan Mishra