Re: [mpls] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06

Stewart Bryant <> Mon, 08 May 2017 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47591294AC; Mon, 8 May 2017 07:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LbbQ_bm09cla; Mon, 8 May 2017 07:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBD911294A8; Mon, 8 May 2017 07:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 142so67898389wma.1; Mon, 08 May 2017 07:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=Ay60VtUR7zaLwOWvj0eXpDf0tGMhjA67It2v4F2mtSs=; b=iz8q/PLUbcHViHGWJihVB86pSNHUjWaAm7DU7YMAcktY1jOhnOoW61TV/qWRdJaeKf b+ttod7e9icpiEQ5SqT7qnBrGgzTx/cq09WSH8psY9MgOrm32zK0VJi1NI/T6R6PTv5w 1XbffJrzi9A4EVNHtMrZYTd6MOiTPPgDRgl2VkLWyuN+3A+kBZ/ZgGBcegye1X+2YQ0F ZclYyGab2N9FJqeamnTdbjc1gniLPhB0r3spfr7C3uCImk8drZRWZknPfCLjtfPAYY12 gTmAu27DtWQDDkrcx1ZZD318yY/vqg4STd9jG8e35lcfLLUWsgM9laMth55KYQTdJ2hn mHQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Ay60VtUR7zaLwOWvj0eXpDf0tGMhjA67It2v4F2mtSs=; b=iWUg6tdwuyj2HXcNqALPwPN3dNdpc3/uHARgRmiPzCvhp2VgBtNJQAYlbC5+YXN2rT 5TS5+xCHYbL+tGvy/Yaf4LeD40cTevqRn49NJPSMi4oTimplW6SkQyTH21TXbnhNWf0m 99ZCQTD+1UTYpRo0HJPbnwhoiiiiibN842Yi9mxetRhRj+S59Q4tkU60T/J4zj3d91LV BahG/E/9jJYvywD30n00xqvNvgkHw4IMPusGxsIM7Z/QJ/M9bC0kKbrt20h63qXoFgtF 4iJd5B6WqiX0JH/DdUJyDXNxBWYOe4sa8LQ6OWR5PS37Fxn/5ERrRdREH71pypMenDv+ XrYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCG44eBdBVdHGQQtmqYQL21ZawSTt41dsaowkl0BGcBle7ah+kx Ytst+C/JeYQxGAWfr+sltg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p3mr3996922wmi.40.1494255141193; Mon, 08 May 2017 07:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 188sm11543970wmf.29.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 May 2017 07:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
To:, "" <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:52:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C3D5D4A3330F8C2AEC6822E7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 14:52:25 -0000

Please could you clarify whether this document is being reviewed by the 
MPLS WG as part of this process?

Please can you explain how the entropy system works in MPLS?

Are you expecting the P router to look into the BIER header, or are you 
expecting BIER capable nodes to construct an entropy structure in the 
outer label stack.

If the latter, you have two methods available to you the EL system, and 
the FAT PW system. The former is becoming the method of choice where 
available, but you have the option of using the later which will work in 
any network.

I find the title a little strange since the union of MPLS and non-MPLS 
is all networks and thus you ought to cut the title after "Replication".

Best regards


On 05/05/2017 23:58, Greg Shepherd wrote:
> At WG meeting, IETF97 in Chicago, we decided to move forward to 
> WGLC for some of our docs. We learned that even once published the 
> IESG has a process to change the track of the RFC if the WG makes the 
> case to move the work from Informational to Standards track. The 
> feedback from operators is that RFC status was more important than 
> track, and we won't be able to meet our charter requirements to change 
> track without deployment experience and operator support.
> This email starts a two week timer for feedback on the draft:
> Please read and respond do this thread. EOWGLC - 20/5/17
> Thank you,
> Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list