Re: [Bier] Questions/comments on https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chen-bier-anycast-label-00.txt
"Chensiyu (Susie)" <chensiyu27@huawei.com> Mon, 18 March 2024 01:57 UTC
Return-Path: <chensiyu27@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 A9F69C14F68A for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tyb6meWEMSoG for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB968C14F5EF for <bier@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TydHw14J6z6JB6Q for <bier@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:56:28 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100003.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.210]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35085140A36 for <bier@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:56:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemd200002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.210) by lhrpeml100003.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:56:21 +0000
Received: from dggpemd500002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.7) by dggpemd200002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.28; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:56:18 +0800
Received: from dggpemd500002.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.7]) by dggpemd500002.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.7]) with mapi id 15.02.1258.028; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:56:18 +0800
From: "Chensiyu (Susie)" <chensiyu27@huawei.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'bier@ietf.org'" <bier@ietf.org>
CC: duanfanghong <duanfanghong@huawei.com>, "Songbo (songbo, MULTICAST)" <sunbird.song@huawei.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: Questions/comments on https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chen-bier-anycast-label-00.txt
Thread-Index: AdpwxCTOGRJ62yEqSlqhAVRJyCVpMwGrCfQQ
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:56:18 +0000
Message-ID: <6c86aa7f8eaa47b08a7628e3392bef9e@huawei.com>
References: <IA1PR05MB9550CC75E82F74B166408EFED4202@IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <IA1PR05MB9550CC75E82F74B166408EFED4202@IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.128.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/rmz-AJZaFXN3u9SCdhUAl2lW0zY>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Questions/comments on https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chen-bier-anycast-label-00.txt
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:57:08 -0000
Hi Jeffrey, Thanks a lot for your review about our drafts. Let me reply you question one by one. Q1: What do you mean by the following?-- 'hard convergence' A: It is same as IGP re-convergence. Q2: Pre-calculated FRR paths can certainly be used, just like in unicast case. A: We'd like to construct a lightweight failure protection method that is suitable for certain topology. I'll introduce in the BIER WG meeting and will update this topology in a new version draft. Q3: It seems that they have different prefixes; so calling them Anycast BIER Prefix is misleading and confusing. A: 'Anycast BIER Prefix' can represent two BIER prefixes from two BFERs, and they carries the same Anycast MPLS Label. BIER prefixes value themselves are different. Q4: Are Anycast labels like "global" labels? A: Yes, we need assign global label block so that different sites' label can be configured or automatically generated without conflicts. Q5: The BIFTs drawn here are different from what's in RFC8279. Can you include the BFR-IDs (as keys) in each row? In the above figure, is the third row for BFR-ID 3? Why does it not have the F-BM? A: I updated the topology in the latest version of draft and slides on the website: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-bier-5-bier-anycast-label Q6: Is the above regular BIER forwarding? A: Forwarding behavior still follows RFC8279. But the procedure of generating BIFT are modified so that two available downstream paths can be maintained in advance. Q7: Is it that the you're using the same global "anycast" label to tie C and D together? If so, why not just use the same BFR-id and BFR-prefix for them? A: Yes. Global Anycast label can be understood as global site label. We would like to maintain BFRID and BFR-Prefix to be unique because CE will only send Join towards one of BFER. So BFIR need to declare the BFER with unique BFR-ID. BFER need to advertise its BIER Info by unique Prefixes. Q8: Does D maintain two or three BIFTs for the same <sub-domain, BSL, set>? A: No. Only one BIFT table will be maintained for the same <SD, BSL, SI>. But Both Anycast and Bypass carried by BIER Packet will be able to locate the same BIFT. The relationship between <SD, BSL, SI> , Anycast Label, Bypass Label will be recorded and utilized. I also apply for the remote BIER WG presentation this time and I will illustrate our draft in this afternoon. See you there :). Best wishes, Siyu -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org] Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 4:11 AM To: Chensiyu (Susie) <chensiyu27@huawei.com> Cc: duanfanghong <duanfanghong@huawei.com>; 'bier@ietf.org' <bier@ietf.org> Subject: Questions/comments on https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chen-bier-anycast-label-00.txt Hi Siyu, I have some questions and comments on this draft. When failures occur at transit or egress BIER node, there is no fast recovery or protecting mechanism currently. The recovery duration depends on how fast the unicast algorithm can re-calculate the new path. The new available path can only be generated in this way called 'hard convergence'. In this document, a fast failover method is designed for BIER to generate an alternative path for flow in advance by allocating and transmitting additional BIER MPLS label. What do you mean by the following? ... The recovery duration depends on how fast the unicast algorithm can re-calculate the new path. The new available path can only be generated in this way called 'hard convergence'. Pre-calculated FRR paths can certainly be used, just like in unicast case. As shown in the following figure, one customer device is multihomed to two BFERs in order to perform egress protection. Two BFERs are deployed in the same egress site. Different BFR-ids and BFR-prefixes are configured. However, they are assigned with same Anycast MPLS label and different Bypass MPLS labels. The same Anycast label can be used to specify the egress site. The Bypass MPLS label works as the traditional MPLS label to ensure the normal behavior of BIER forwarding function within the site. They are advertised by BIER- Info Sub-Tlv in BIER prefix. BIER prefix carrying Anycast MPLS label is called Anycast BIER Prefix. After receiving BIER prefix, BIER It seems that they have different prefixes; so calling them Anycast BIER Prefix is misleading and confusing. MPLS Label will be contained in BIER Forwarding Table to instruct forwarding data packet. Are Anycast labels like "global" labels? After receiving BIER Info Sub-TLV, BFR will parse Bypass MPLS Label and Anycast MPLS Label. The relationship of [BFR-id, Anycast Label, Bypass Label] will be maintained by each BFR. As shown in the figure below, BFR will receive BIER Info Sub-TLVs from BFER-C and BFER-D. The Anycast Label of two BFERs are different with BFR's, but they are same with each other. BFR will combine BFR-id of BFER-C and BFER-D as the one entry in the Bit Index Forwarding Table. Both BFER-C and BFER-D may receive packet. Site1 Site2 Site3 ------ BFER-C(2) | | BFR-A(1)-- BFR-B ---- BFER-D(3) -------- CE Figure 3: BIER Egress Site Deployment BFR-B BIFT -------------------------------------- | F-BM | BFR-NBR | NBR-Label | ===================================== | 001 | A | AnycastLabel-1 | ------------------------------------- | 110 | C | AnycastLabel-3 | ------------------------------------- | D | AnycastLabel-3 | ------------------------------------- Figure 4: BFR-B BIFT The BIFTs drawn here are different from what's in RFC8279. Can you include the BFR-IDs (as keys) in each row? In the above figure, is the third row for BFR-ID 3? Why does it not have the F-BM? When BFR receives BIER data packet, it will locate the BIFT according to the BIFT-id encapsulted in BIER header. If the packet needs to be forwarded to BFR-id 3, it will modify the BIFT-id field as AnycastLabel-2 and then forward it. When BFER-D receives this packet, the packet will be finnaly sent to CE. Is the above regular BIER forwarding? BFERs will also advertise their BIER Info Sub-Tlv to each other. When BFER-C receives BFER-D's Sub-sub-TLV, it finds BFER-D has same anycast label and different bypass label, it will encode bypass label into its BIFT as shown below. Is it that the you're using the same global "anycast" label to tie C and D together? If so, why not just use the same BFR-id and BFR-prefix for them? BFR-C BIFT -------------------------------------- | F-BM | BFR-NBR | NBR-Label | ===================================== | 001 | B | Label-3 | ------------------------------------- | 100 | D | BypassLabel-13 | ------------------------------------- Figure 5: BFR-C BIFT Which two BFR-IDs are the two entries in the above table for? 3.4. Fast Recovery When link between BFR-B and BFER-D goes down due to certain reason, BFR-B will detect it and forward packet to BFER-C immediately according to BIFT entry. AnycastLabel-2 will be encapsulated. When BFER-C receives this packet, it will firstly use anycast label to locate corresponding BIFT table. Then it will use BFR-id 3 to look Does C maintain two BIFTs for the same <sub-domain, BSL, set>? Or even three (with the 3rd one identified by its bypass label)? for F-BM and find its neighbor is BFER-D. The bypass label of BFER-D will be encapsulated into data packet header. Then BFER-D will finally receive the packet. No packet will be dropped because the backup out interface has been generated when the anycast and bypass MPLS Labels have been advertised and utilized. Does D maintain two or three BIFTs for the same <sub-domain, BSL, set>? What is the advantage of this solution compared to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-bier-anycast/? Thanks. Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only
- [Bier] Questions/comments on https://www.ietf.org… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] Questions/comments on https://www.ietf… Chensiyu (Susie)
- Re: [Bier] Questions/comments on https://www.ietf… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang