Re: [Idr] [Bier] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xu-idr-bier-extensions-01.txt

Antoni Przygienda <> Wed, 18 March 2015 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2631A908E; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50aw0TQB8cGR; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F63B1A888A; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79686d0000030a8-83-55097b25ce88
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E1.96.12456.52B79055; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:18:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:22:59 -0400
From: Antoni Przygienda <>
To: Eric C Rosen <>, Xuxiaohu <>, idr wg <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] [Idr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xu-idr-bier-extensions-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQYascGhi2SsoSHUGB0TYElr3ql50inYKw
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:22:59 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlK5qNWeowZmLphZLZ+xhsli34QOz xavbz5gstp5fxejA4tFy5C2rx5IlP5k8rjddZQ9gjuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKWPD0F3PBXq6K Y6dOsTcwzuboYuTkkBAwkZjTdJkNwhaTuHBvPZDNxSEkcIRRYsbGjSwQznJGiQU9R5lAqtgE LCQuf3vKDGKLCNRL/Os+xgpiCwskSLy8NoMdIp4o0bfqFZRtJLHq1nKwDSwCqhLHpy4B6+UV 8JZYN7MJzBYSKJNofwSyjJODU0BbYu+ZXWAzGYEu+n5qDdheZgFxiVtP5jNBXCogsWTPeWYI W1Ti5eN/rBC2osS+/unsEPU6Egt2f2KDsLUlli18DbVXUOLkzCcsExhFZyEZOwtJyywkLbOQ tCxgZFnFyFFanFqWm25ksIkRGC3HJNh0dzDueWl5iFGAg1GJh/fDRo5QIdbEsuLK3EOM0hws SuK8ix4cDBESSE8sSc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXAuHvblbAruaeq9gq/Vnm0/4P4fy7D Ve8WH3p33bPYaXITq8+fC2uPbVArWb7f4VRP7WTuqOyzuzr27S32z3RbOkeDoaN01r+IhVL9 vmV3jnKUOPS+7igxv90eeeS/yUzZKzd6dn6WX5of7VCQOuHa1+PXdItCvL+YfQmbN/kWY9z2 063Ge69q1iuxFGckGmoxFxUnAgDqjF0RdwIAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Bier] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xu-idr-bier-extensions-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:23:06 -0000

> The draft never quite says that if the BIER path attribute is present, the NLRI is
> treated by BIER as a "BFR-prefix".  Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I
> think this needs to be said explicitly.

 [Tony saiz:]  I made the same comment and a larger discussion is whether only a single NLRI (BFR-prefix) is allowed in such an update (i.e. update carrying BIER attributes). 

> It might be worth mentioning that, when creating a BIER attribute, a BFR needs
> to include one BIER TLV for every <sub-domain, bsl> pair that it supports.

 [Tony saiz:] I made the same comment. Alternative is to have a single BIER attribute per sub-domain in an update to allow e.g. a loopback per sub-domain (which does not sound right to me since the architecture seems to imply  a 1-1 assocation between a BFR prefix and a BIER domain).   

> I wonder (warning, half-baked idea approaching) if the BIER TLV needs
> something like a "BIER next hop" sub-TLV.  This could be changed to 'self' by
> every BFR that redistributes the route, but would be left unchanged by non-
> BFRs. Then you'd always know the next BFR in the path to a given BFER.

 [Tony saiz:]  hmm, yes, given the tunneling in the architecture this is something I have to think through as well. 

--- tony