Subject: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-php-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 10:21:32 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG of the IETF.

        Title           : BIER Penultimate Hop Popping
        Author          : Zhaohui Zhang
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bier-php-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2018-11-16

Abstract:
   Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) can be used as provider tunnel
   for MVPN/GTM [RFC6514] [RFC7716] or EVPN BUM [RFC7432].  It is
   possible that not all routers in the provider network support BIER
   and there are various methods to handle BIER incapable transit
   routers.  However the MVPN/EVPN PEs are assumed to be BIER capable -
   they are BFIRs/BFERs.  This document specifies a method to allow BIER
   incapable routers to act as MVPN/EVPN PEs with BIER as the transport,
   by having the upstream BFR (connected directly or indirectly via a
   tunnel) of a PE remove the BIER header and send the payload to the
   PE.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-php/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-php-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bier-php-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Senthil Dhanaraj <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:21:59 +0530

Hi Jeffrey,

Few comments, Pls check !

1. Non-BIER capable router
This is the property of the router and not a per sub-domain attribute.
Considering the same, should we define the PHP TLV as a node-level TLV
instead of a sub-TLV under BIER SD TLV ? This would avoid having to encode
PHP sub-TLV for each dub-domain supported by the node.

2. BIER Capable router - Not supporting a BSL
This is again the property of the router  (or per line card?)
Similar to (1), should we use a node-level TLV and specify the BSL's (as
bit mask?) for which PHP is requested.

3. It is better we clarify the TTL procedure at the penultimate LSR
explicitly ?

4. OAM packets - Ping/Trace destined to the edge node who requested PHP
will not work. Should we define specific error codes to be sent back by
penultimate lsr in such cases for better OAM?

Thanks,
Senthil

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:51 PM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>