Re: [Roll] Does BIER ROLL?

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 02 November 2017 13:04 UTC

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Does BIER ROLL?
Thread-Index: AdNTtHg9V6EGAiYcS72JT8pNAXqUlQAS9QEAAAlpaAA=
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 13:04:49 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:04:11 +0000
Message-ID: <74ef64b6a878459d8a8d203838f0273e@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <c2ebc4764c6d4c3983b3a3f622909eff@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <31140.1509625838@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <31140.1509625838@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/kSromET3m2klrsiefXTFLlWFCMk>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Does BIER ROLL?
Precedence: list

Hello Michael 

Agreed.


> Is the 6LoRH one the compression specification from your document?

We have https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lo-bier-dispatch-03 that is designed for it. Point is, having it separate enables to send that doc to 6lo for validation. OTOH, it is an other draft to take through IESG.

Take care,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca] 
Sent: jeudi 2 novembre 2017 13:31
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Does BIER ROLL?


Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > The current position of the WG, which has a single WG doc, ccast, that covers
    > only one combination only, seems lacking to me. Did we think that through?

    > I think not. I think we understood the benefits of bitmaps but did not
    > clearly studied the scope we wanted to cover.

I think that the WG took small steps forward without excluding additional ones.

    > I’d like to discuss the options at the next IETF and decide which WG doc(s)
    > we really want to cover the 3 dimensions.

I agree that it's a discussion we should have.

    > I can see at least:

    > - A) 2 docs, whereby I remove compression from mine, and we keep ccast as is.

    > - B) One document with all dimensions in it

    > - C) 2 docs, one without Bloom compression and one that focusses on the Bloom
    > compression for all (modes*routing) including non-BIER

    > - D) 3 docs, the 2 above, and the 6LoRH separate.

Is the 6LoRH one the compression specification from your document?

    > I like C) and D), because there is a lot that’s needed for Bloom, in
    > particular the distribution of hash functions, that is very special to that
    > technique. Also Bloom can compress anything. We could for instance hash the
    > IPv6 address on the outgoing port that needs to forward in non-storing to
    > specify the multicast tree in non-storing mode, and hash the destination in
    > storing mode, since the Bloom filters are additive.

    > What do others think?

    > Pascal



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Re: [Roll] Does BIER ROLL? Carsten Bormann
[Roll] Does BIER ROLL? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] Does BIER ROLL? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] Does BIER ROLL? Michael Richardson
Re: [Roll] Does BIER ROLL? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] Does BIER ROLL? peter van der Stok
Re: [Roll] Does BIER ROLL? peter van der Stok