Re: [Bier] draft-xie-bier-ipv6-mvpn question:

["Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for your response !
Please see below inline (stripped unneeded text) marked with [xjr2].

Thanks
Jingrong

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 8:04 PM
To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <[e-mail]>; BIER WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-mvpn question: 

Jingrong,

Please see zzh> below.


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:41 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>; BIER WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-mvpn question: 

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Hi Jeffrey,
Appreciate sincerely for raising discussions about the draft.
Please see my response inline below marked with [xjr]

Thanks
Jingrong

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 4:36 AM
To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <[e-mail]>; BIER WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-mvpn question:


Zzh> While this draft is about MVPN (though you did talk about VNI below), there is no reason to have a different solution for EVPN, in which case every PE could be a BFIR.
[xjr2] OK. This draft has the same scaling problem surely, and DCB/VNI is particularly needed for such MP2MP model.

Zzh> Whether by signaling or by configuration, the key point is that the egress must carve out the same function portion of the source address for lookup. My understanding is that the locater/function/argument portions are not fixed.
[xjr2] Got it!

Besides, would you think it necessary to extend the "DCB label" to 24bit to cover the VNI length ?
Zzh> This is already covered in RFC8365:
[xjr2] Thanks ! Good to see the example exactly!

Can you elaborate the above scenario (BIERv6 packets unicast to BR and then replicated)? Is it a scenario that must be supported?
[xjr] The above scenario is covered in <draft-geng-bier-ipv6-inter-domain>, so it is not covered in this document, as this document mainly focuses on the "BGP-MVPN" protocol extension.
Zzh> If you're referring to the "peering" model in that draft, which is very controversy, it's better to not mention it here at all. That entire draft should be adequately discussed before other drafts start referring to it.
[xjr2] Got it!

When/where would the above two scenarios (non-segmented and segmented) be covered?
Zzh> I agree the BIFT construction is not the concern of this document - whether segmentation is used or not - and we don't even need to list BIFT construction as "out of scope" (this is referring to the non-segmentation case earlier).
[xjr2] Got it! 

[xjr] Haven't considered segmented MVPN in detail yet, Will come back if I have any further thoughts.
Zzh> So the segmentation is not "out of the scope" (otherwise there is no complete solution) - it should be "for further study" or "provided in future revisions".
[xjr2] Good to learn the distinction of these terms in draft writing! Thanks!

Zzh> Thanks.
Zzh> Jeffrey

Thanks.
Jeffrey

Juniper Business Use Only