IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] Direction: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Tue, 17 March 2020 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.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 02D533A1BD7 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 02:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4IF_xF0mOk3H for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 02:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E3DC3A1BB0 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 02:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 32D2680958767E9FC5B2; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:36:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.160) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:36:25 +0000
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:36:23 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:36:23 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] Direction: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation
Thread-Index: AQHV+/YnqpQ+2LF0LECTKPJw2HcjnahMhjIA
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:36:23 +0000
Message-ID: <563bd118f7a04882bfa19c6eadf59300@huawei.com>
References: <CABFReBq7O4FE4nJin0dkypDTn+TTnh-LzfT70dxVvVY32uik=w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBq7O4FE4nJin0dkypDTn+TTnh-LzfT70dxVvVY32uik=w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.202.118]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_563bd118f7a04882bfa19c6eadf59300huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/pnO5bRFngumfAGZeloXCW-R8fAE>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Direction: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation
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: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:36:46 -0000

Dear the chairs,

See inline below >>

From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 8:51 AM
To: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Subject: [Bier] Direction: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation

draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation authors,

To date, there has been insufficient support on the list to adopt the draft. It is the BIER WG position at this time that a review by the 6man WG should take place before any further discussion in the BIER WG.

Can you confirm that we are not allowed to discuss about this draft in BIER WG -- Either solely BIER related issues, or cross-WG issues ?

6MAN WG review aside, the draft still raises significant technical concerns within the BIER WG. Adding replication information into a programmatic header does NOT add replication to programmatic forwarding path, nor programmatics to your replication forward path. It is at this point where replication begins that all prograrmmatics cease due to the multi-point nature of replication.  We have a nearly three decades of experience trying to use unicast semantics to describe multi-point forwarding, and sometimes learning from the past requires leaving it.

Thanks you,
Chairs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email