Re: [Bier] comments on draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation

Xiaohu, the BIER mailing list archived several discussions dealing with
that very issue and a widely announced interim has been held to converge
the different strains of thought. I suggest to reference the according mail
archives/meeting minutes for documentation how the consensus process ran
its due course ...

thanks

--- tony

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It's great to see that the concept of non-MPLS encapsulation is eventually
> accepted by the WG. However, the current non-MPLS BIER header as defined in
> draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation has no significant difference from the
> MPLS-BIER header, IMHO. The major change is just to rename the 20-bit MPLS
> label as the Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT) ID with realignment of
> fields. That's to say, no matter in the MPLS-BIER header or the
> non-MPLS-BIER header, the SI and Sub-domain values which are needed for
> BIFT lookup are not explicitly contained in the BIER packet. My question is
> why not directly encode the SI and Sub-domain in the BIER packet?
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>

-- 
*We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
that is not true.*
—Robert Wilensky