Re: [Bier] adoption call for draft-zzhang-bier-multicast-as-a-service

Aijun Wang <> Tue, 14 June 2022 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A107C14F737; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZCMO5msBzie; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 437B2C14F733; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 2A1831C0186; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:50:33 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-FA49C749-22AC-4A5E-8A3D-BDB23E9836B5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Aijun Wang <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:50:32 +0800
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19F77)
X-HM-Tid: 0a8160559fd6d993kuws2a1831c0186
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] adoption call for draft-zzhang-bier-multicast-as-a-service
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 14 Jun 2022 03:50:43 -0000


I support its adoption and think it provides the solutions that the customers can use to deploy their multicast services based on BIER technology.
Can the authors make some clarification for the description in section 2.1 “BGP Procedures”:

“If a provider provides independent BAAS services to multiple
   customers, when its BFR receives BIER prefixes from a customer it
   MUST re-advetise with a new BIER SAFI.  For simplicity, all BFRs of
   the provider use the same RD that is specifically assigned for the
   customer.  When a BFR re-advertises BIER prefixes to a customer, it
   MUST re-advertise with SAFI 1 or 2.”

Why the BIER SAFI is not used when a BFR re-advertise BIER prefixes to a customer?

And for the IANA consideration part, why the OSPFv3 corresponding part is missed?

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Jun 5, 2022, at 18:19, wrote:
> This is the 2-week WG adoption call  for 
> Please indicate your support or objection.
> 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