Re:BIER in IPv6 --- draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-04

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Mon, 23 March 2020 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C44B3A0043 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 BtFIPc_z2j7q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 4BCE53A0034 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id AD0D67208430C4976280 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:14:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 9439A62239F358749023; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:14:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 02N3E6Cv007130; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:14:06 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:14:06 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:14:06 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5e78297eff5a6595
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202003231114061611017@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <0aaf9a4e017643af85cd246b04d1858c@huawei.com>
References: 202003211343071096710@zte.com.cn, 0aaf9a4e017643af85cd246b04d1858c@huawei.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: gengxuesong@huawei.com
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
Subject: Re:BIER in IPv6 --- draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-04
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 02N3E6Cv007130
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/sMn87x0pSQVWA-M5TKMjgJZ-ZJc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 03:14:14 -0000

Hi Xuesong,






Thank you for your question!


The LL address is used by direct connected neighbor.


For the neighbor which is not direct connected, the wider range address should be used.






Thanks,


Sandy









原始邮件



发件人:Gengxuesong(GengXuesong) <gengxuesong@huawei.com>
收件人:张征00007940;6man@ietf.org <6man@ietf.org>;
日 期 :2020年03月23日 11:03
主 题 :RE: Re:BIER in IPv6 --- draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-04






Hi Sandy and authors of draft-zhang-bier-bierin6:


 


I have some questions about the section 2 when reading the draft. It is mentioned that:


“If... The destination address in IPv6 header SHOULD be the neighbor's link-local address.


Otherwise... the destination address SHOULD be the BIER prefix of the BFR neighbor.”


Seems like the draft proposes 2 methods of IPv6 header encapsulation.


Could these 2 methods be combined ? If not, what's the use case and design consideration for each method?


 


Best Regards


Xuesong


 


 


 


From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 1:43 PM
To: 6man@ietf.org
Subject: Re:BIER in IPv6 --- draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-04


 

Hi,

As co-author of BIERin6 (draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-04), before you read the draft, please let me introduce BIER technology to you at first:

BIER technology, as defined in RFC8279, it's a new multicast technology. The principle is achieving multicast forwarding by hop-by-hop execution.

BIER is a transport protocol, not just a function. As defined in RFC8296, BIER has it's own ethernet encapsulation with ethernet type 0xAB37, and also it can be travelled by MPLS encapsulation.

BIER has it's own OAM function, ECMP function and traceability. etc. through BIER header defined in RFC8296.

 

For travelling through IPv6 only enviroment, we'd like to travel BIER packet by IPv6 encapsulation.

In draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-04, we want to just use a new Next Header type for BIER header carrying.

We want to bring the minimum impact on IPv6 existed execution, and the maximum flexibility for header interoperability.

So if you have any question about draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-04, or about BIER technology itself, please tell me. I'am glad to explain them to you.

 

Thanks,

Sandy

 


原始邮件



发件人:TonyPrzygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>



收件人:Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>;



抄送人:6man@ietf.org <6man@ietf.org>;



日 期 :2020年03月19日 01:12



主 题 :Re: BIER in IPv6




--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


<BIER WG chair hat on>



 


The specific ask here is for the 6man to look over both drafts, i.e.



 


draft-zhang-bier-bierin6



 


and



 


draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation



 


and verify whether they conform to published IPv6 standards or raise objections/concerns.



 


The requirements document is currently under active work/comments and does not represent any final or wide-consensus state so an opinion on its state is appreciated but it should not be used as any final or binding list
 of requirements as to the targeted solution in BIER WG



 


thanks



 


--- tony




 


On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:20 PM Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote:



Hello,


 


The bier wg could use your ipv6 recommendations. We’ve worked on various solutions to transport a bier header in ipv6. We decided to pause and create a requirements
 document (draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements) to help steer us towards the right solution(s). In that drafts appendix we have a fairly good summary of the various solutions.


 


We’ve started to rally behind two solutions which meet the majority of the requirements: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation (bier header in ipv6 EH) and draft-zhang-bier-bierin6
 (bier header as payload using ipv6 NH). The bier chairs today asked to punt the bierv6 topic to 6man for advice before adopting any of these solutions.


 


So here we are seeking your advice. The most simple approach would probably be to give  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements/
 a look and scroll down to the appendix to see a summary of the various solutions we’ve been considering.


 


thanks!


mike


 


 


 




--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------