Subject: [Detnet] Fwd: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch 1 WEEK

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:41:47 -0500

FYI - this may be of interest to some. 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch 1 WEEK
Date: 	Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:45:54 -0800
From: 	Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: 	[email-masked]
To: 	Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=[email-masked]>
CC: 	Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>

Thanks Toerless and Jeffrey

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/

One more week of WGLC. Please read the latest rev and respond to this 
thread w/wo support.

Chairs
(Shep)

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang 
<zzhang=[email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

    Hi Toerless,

    Thanks!
    I support moving this to the next stage.

    Jeffrey

    On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:42:38PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
     > Thanks Jeff
     >
     > I have now pushed out -05 with the answers and hopefully
    resolution to
     > your points in email below.  Biggest addition was a section about
     > reuse of BPs (without DNR) which came out of the confusion i
    think the
     > reuse in the ECMP example raised. I was afraid so far to explan that
     > as it may not be easy to absorb and ultimately is stuff only
     > controller developers need to understand, but hopefully useful.
     > And then of course the summary of BP optimizatins you asked for
     >
     > Diff from last version i sent you:
     >
     >
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
     > **Araw.githubusercontent.com
    <http://Araw.githubusercontent.com>*toerless*bier-te-arch*master*draft-ietf-b
     > ier-te-arch-05.1.txt&url2=http:**Atools.ietf.org
    <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te
    -arch-05.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzH
     > OCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx41_jWX2At8V-$
     >
     > full -04 -> 05 diff:
     >
     >
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=http:*
     > *Atools.ietf.org
    <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-04.txt&url2=http:**Atools.
     > ietf.org
    <http://ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-05.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!!NEt6yMaO-gk
     > !VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzHOCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx41_jWancpziv$
     >
     > Comments inline below.
     >
     > Cheers
     >     toerless
     >
     > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 07:52:59PM +0000, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
    wrote:
     > > I Thought u-turn is the most simple comparison leaf vs.
    non-leaf BFR.
     > >
     > > Zzh> The text in the email is seriously misaligned. Looking at
    the picture in the diff link, while you gave a U-turn example,
    though even if BFER2 is not connected to BFR2  but only connected to
    BFER1 (hence no U-turn), then BFER1 is still not a leaf BFER I
    suppose. That's why I said the first sentence of the above paragraph
    is enough to define Leaf BFER while the example itself is actually
    not needed.
     >
     > Argh... ok, had to fix two words, BFIR->BFER and left-hand ->
    right-hand:
     >
     > Consider how redundant disjoint traffic can reach BFER1/BFER2 in
    above
     > picture: When BFER1/BFER2 are Non-Leaf BFER as shown on the right
    hand
     > side, one traffic copy would be forwarded to BFER1 from BFR1, but
    the
     > other one could only reach BFER1 via BFER2, which makes BFER2 a
     > non-Leaf BFER. Likewise BFER1 is a non-Leaf BFER when forwarding
     > traffic to BFER2
     >
     > > Zzh> Additionally, in left part of the picture you added, if
    some failure leads to BFR2 to be only reachable via BFER1, then
    BFER1 is no longer a leaf BFER.
     >
     > Added sentence:
     >
     > <t>Note that the BFER in the left hand picture are only
    guaranteed to
     > be leaf-BFR by fitting routing configuration that prohibits transit
     > traffic to pass through a PE, which is commonly applied in these
     > topologies.</t>
     >
     > > I assume you don't reassign BPs when links go up and down.
     >
     > I didn't want to discuss that option in this document. Its obviously
     > perfectly feasible, but be yet a big amount of text (especially the
     > considerations how to do this make-before-break. Future doc.
     >
     > > > but subsequent polarization example confuses me. It seems
    that BP 0:6 is assigned to the routed adjacency BFR10 (which is
    actually talked about in Section 4.8).
     > >
     > > Section 4.7 does not mention "routed" at all, so there are no
    routed adjacencies at all used in 4.7. So i am not sure what you are
    confused about.
     > >
     > > Zzh> "The BIFT of each BFR are only populated with BPs that are
    adjacent to the BFR in the BIER-TE topology".
     >
     > Correct text from the introduction. Ok.
     >
     > > Zzh> Since the same 0:6 is in BIFTS of BFR1/BFR2/BFR3 (and I
    suppose in BFR4~BFR9 as well even though not drawn), I assumed it's
    for the "MP2P" routed adjacency to R10; though I then ruled that out
    - but I don't know what 0:6 represent now on BFR1, BFR2, and BFR3.
     >
     > Ah. Ok. I thought i could strip down the example to show only the
     > adjacencies relevant to the following discusion, but seemingly this
     > can introduce the confusion you have.
     >
     > So i completed the example with the BP assignment acoss all
    nodes, but
     > added text pointing to a new section further down to discuss the
     > re-use of BP for which thi picture is also an example.
     >
     > (check out the diff, new reuse text to long to copy inline).
     >
     > > The whole purpose of the ECMP BPs is of course to save bits,
    otherwise we'd give each link a separate BP, which would be 6 BP to
    reach to BFR4...BFR7 from BFR1.
     > >
     > > Zzh> The trouble I am having is that the same 0:6 is assigned
    to different things and it's present on all BFR1/BFR2/BFR3. It is
    perhaps an intentional smart design but I have not wrapped my mind
    around it. It's apparently different from the link bundle case, so
    better separate it out and elaborate it (including the DNR flag that
    might be needed here - If the packet arrives on BFR1 with 0:6, would
    the BP reset when it is sent to BFR2/3)?
     >
     > Yes, there was the bug of reusing BP 0:6 across sequential BFR along
     > the path, but now the example correctly reuses separate BP at
     > different stages of the paths (BP 0:6 on BFR1, BP 0:7 on
    BFR2/BFR3) and so on.
     >
     > Thanks!
     >
     > > > 4.8.  Routed adjacencies
     > > >
     > > > If I understand it correctly, there is a BP assigned to L1/L2/L3
     > > > respectively (p2p link), and then there are BPs assigned to
    MP2P tunnels (routed adjacency from every BFR) to the L1/L2/L3
    interface addresses and loopback addresses on BFR2/3.
     > >
     > > Ok that wasn't quite the read i expected. Let me clarify the
    text/picture:
     > >
     > >                    ...............
     > >          ...BFR1--...           ...--L1-- BFR2...
     > >                   ... .Routers. ...--L2--/
     > >          ...BFR4--...           ...------ BFR3...
     > >                    ...............         |
     > >                                           LO
     > >                     Network Area 1
     > >
     > > Assume the requirement in the above picture is to explicitly
    steer traffic flows that have arrived at BFR1 or BFR4 via a shortest
    path in the routing underlay "network area 1" to one of the
    following three next segments: (1) BFR2 via link L1, (2) BFR2 via
    link L2, (3) via BFR3.
     > >
     > > To achieve this, both BFR1 and BFR4 are set up with a
    forward_routed adjacency BitPosition towards an address of BFR2 on
    link L1, another forward_routed BitPosition towards an address of
    BFR2 on link L2 and a third forward_routed Bitposition towards a
    node address LO of BFR3.
     > >
     > > Does this clear ip the confusion ?
     > >
     > > Zzh> The picture is badly misaligned. I'll wait till 4.7
    questions are cleared.
     >
     > Ok.
     >
     > > > If BFR2/3 are also BFERs, then they additionally will have
    BFER BPs.
     > > > On BFR1/4, the BIFT entries for the MP2P BPs for the
    L1/L2/L3/loopback interface addresses of BFR2/3 will use
    forward_routed(interface/loopback address). For a packet to be
    decapsulated on a BFER, there is a need for both the BFER BP and
    another BP (p2p/lan/hub-spoke/routed-adjacency) in the packet (the
    former is for decapsulation and the latter is for getting it there).
     > >
     > > This is not discussed in this section, but you are right - unless
     > > BFR2 or BFR3 is a leaf BFR. In that case, it would just
    leverage the one shared "leaf-BFR" BP, so they do not need a
    per-BFER BP for local_decap().
     > >
     > > Zzh> Right - shared leaf-BFR BP but still need that BP (the key
    is that we need a BP to get packet to a BFER and then a BP for
    decapsulation).
     >
     > You got it.
     >
     > > > If that???s the case, it???s worth point the above out.
     > >
     > > Hmm... The logic of BFER BPs is totally independent of the
    logic of forward_routed adjacency, so i would worry that repeating
    the explanation of BFER BPs would conflate the forward_routed
    explanation.
     > >
     > > Zzh> It's just that this is a place where all kinds of BPs are
    used so it's good to have a summary (could be a subsection 4.9).
     >
     > Yes, added such a summary. Pls. check.
     >
     > > > Actually, the reason that I thought this is MP2P is that 0:6
    is present on R1, R2, and R3 (and more I assume) in Figure 12, but
    now I think it can???t be MP2P (so it is not correct to have 0:6
    present on those routers ??? only the p2p tunnel head/tail should
    have the BP present in the BIFT). The reason is that if it were
    MP2P, any router getting a copy will send it to the endpoint of the
    routed adjacency, causing lots of duplicates.
     > > >
     > > > Am I getting this correct?
     > >
     > > I think you are still explaining from the misunderstsanding
    that the ECMP explanations where about routed adjacencies.
     > >
     > > I have now expanded the somewhat terse text in the BIFT table
    pictures, to make it clear that the ECMP is across multipe
    forward_connected adjacencies in the examples. For example, first
    BIFT picture:
     > >
     > >   BIFT entry in BFR1:
     > >  ------------------------------------------------------------------
     > >   | Index |  Adjacencies                  |
     > >  ==================================================================
     > >   | 0:6   |  ECMP({forward_connected(L1, BFR2),                 |
     > >   |       |        forward_connected(L2, BFR2),                 |
     > >   |       |        forward_connected(L3, BFR2)}, seed)         
        |
     > >  ------------------------------------------------------------------
     > >
     > > Of course, an ECMP adjacency can be across any type of
    adjacencies, but all the text/explanations used forward_connected,
    and now the pictures show that explicitly.
     > >
     > > Zzh> I can understand the multi-link case, but the multi-hop
    ECMP case (from BFR1 towards BFR10) is confusing me. It would help
    to give an example how it can be used, WITHOUT worrying about
    polarization.
     >
     > Please check -05 text that has the full set of BIFT listed now:
     >
     > There is  really nothing nothing unique in multi-hop ECMP for
    BIER-TE
     > that we do not also have in any other ECMP, except the conclusion
    that
     > we want to support fast HW hash mechanisms AND allow the
    controller to
     > set up non-polarized multi-hop ECMP AND be able to precalculate
    paths.
     > Hence the specification of ECMP adjacencies to have a controller
     > configurable seed.
     >
     > Btw: The picture is maybe unnecessarily large because i've used
    it for
     > 20 years to explain the same polarization issue for unicast vs
     > multicast, and for multicast only BFR10...BFR4 are relevant (ECMP of
     > the PIM/mLDP joins), whereas for unicast/BIER only
     > BFR1...BFR7 are relevant. But being symmetric, the picture makes it
     > clear its the same problem.
     >
     > > >    To inhibit looping in the face of such physical
    misconfiguration,
     > > >    only forward_connected adjacencies are permitted to have
    DNR set, and
     > > >    the link layer destination address of the adjacency (e.g.  MAC
     > > >    address) protects against closing the loop.  Link layers
    without port
     > > >    unique link layer addresses should not be used with the
    DNR flag set.
     > > >
     > > > It???s not clear how link layer address helps?
     > >
     > > I have expanded this to
     > > "link layer port unique unicast destination address"
     > >
     > > Aka: MPLS or ethernet have unique link layer destination
    destination addresses (label or destination MAC). If you think about
    incorrectly plugged HDLC links (such as old T1/T3/... links), they
    only have 2 generic addresses, if i remember 1 or 3 in the HDLC
    frame. So when you misplug one of those p2p cables wrong, the
    packets would be incrrectly received by the wrong receiver node and
    then DNR could cause persistent loops only solved by TTL.
     > >
     > > Zzh> "Consider in the ring picture that link L4 from BFR3 is
    plugged into the L1 interface of BFRa" - still not sure how
    label/mac helps here. I suppose the ring topology is
    discovered/verified by the control plane and when the miscalling
    happens then the ring will not include the BFR1/BFR2 part and BFR3
    will not have the DNR set? If ring discovery/varication is not done
    then perhaps we should point out that RPF based on link layer
    address is needed - the key is RPF (which needs unique link layer
    address)?
     >
     > Forget RPF. BIER(-TE) has no RPF (issues). Its just like unicast.
    RPF
     > is just a problem for receiver originated joins like in PIM/mLDP,
    but
     > not unicast/bier(-te)/RSVP-TE.
     >
     > Forward_connected is just like a unicast subnet adjacency to a
    direct
     > neighbor: Interface and L2 addresss of the destination.
     >
     > The controller (could be a human) "assumes" a particular physicial
     > topology, from telemetry/knowledge/whatever. It then calculates the
     > desired BIER-TE topology and pushes it down. This topology is
    meant to
     > be loop free of course wrt to the configured adjacencies.
     > In this BIER-TE topology, BFR3 will have a BP with the
     > forward_connected(L4, MAC-of-BFR2) adjacency.
     >
     > If the cable connecting to L4 is miswired, then BFR3 would still
    send
     > the packets to the MAC address of BFR2, but given how the cable
     > connects to some other node, these packets will be discarded by that
     > node. because they're just L2 unicast packets.
     >
     > I think this is equally true when we have normal BIER/MPLS enacp.
     > Those packets too are addressed to the unicast MAC address of the
     > neighbor.
     >
     > Now, if/when he controller recognizes that the physical topology has
     > changed, thats a completely different story and not addressed here.
     > Given how we assumed this was a cabling mistake, the controller
    would
     > probably only complain about the miswiring to operations but be
    happy
     > that the forwarding plane just makes packets fail instead of
    loop. If
     > this was a planned change process, then it will be similarily
     > convoluted as it would today be with rewiring cables in an
     > SR-MPLS/SRv6 topology and updating SIDs.
     >
     > > > Because the forwarding is different from BIER forwarding
    (because of [1] above), we might as well introduce an optimization
    here ??? for each BIFT, calculate the F-BM of the BIFT itself (the
    logical ???or??? of all the BPs presented in this BIFT) and then use
    (packet->bitstring & BIFT.F-BM) as the input to
    GetFirst/NextBitPosition(). That should skip many bits.
     > >
     > > Right. But i explicitly removed those optimizations (i had them
    in older draft versions) because the whole idea of this picture is
    solely the comparison with figure 4 of RFC8279.
     > >
     > > Zzh> I think it's worth point that optimization out; you can
    mark it optional if you want to emphasize the similarity to BIER
    forwarding, but since BIER forwarding does do the maskoff step, it
    is very efficient while BIER-TE forwarding does not it the maskoff
    step so this optimization is important.
     >
     > Ok. I simplified the text comparison BIER/BIER-TE wrt. to the FBM
     > rules [1] and [2] and added following paragraph:
     >
     > <t>In BIER, the order of BPs impacts the result of forwarding
    because of [1].
     > In BIER-TE, forwarding is not impacted by the order of BPs. It is
     > therefore possible to further optimize forwarding than in BIER. For
     > example parallelizing forwarding across multiple FPE cores or
     > distributed linecards does only need to examine an arbitrary
    subset of
     > BP and not evaluate the dependency between BPs.</t>
     >
     > > >    The following pseudocode is comprehensive:
     > > >
     > > > The above sentence reads a bit strange (or lacks some segue).
     > >
     > > I hope not, but maybe best left to a native english speaker
    (RFC-editor).
     > >
     > > The first (RFC8279) pseudocode was simplified. The second one
    is comprehensive. If not comprehensive, whats a good opposite of
    simplified ?
     > >
     > > Zzh> Perhaps "The above simplified pseudocode is elaborated
    further as following"?
     > > Zzh> Jeffrey
     >
     > Done.
     >
     > Thanks a lot.
     >
     >
     > >
     > > > ________________________________________
     > > > From: BIER [[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]>>]
     > > > on behalf of Toerless Eckert [[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>]
     > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 23:38
     > > > To: Mike McBride
     > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; BIER WG; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
     > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch
     > > >
     > > > Thanks, Mike
     > > >
     > > > The authors also reviewed the document and concluded that it was
     > > > really hard to get into the document context because of too many
     > > > forward dependencies. We tried to fix this by adding two
    hopefully
     > > > good & basic examples into the Introduction section and using
    them
     > > > to also add a better definition of the term "BIER-TE
    Topology" in the Introduction.
     > > > Hopefully this makes readin the rest of te document smoother.
     > > >
     > > > Also improved text of Abstract and refined text compariing
    BIER-TE with SR.
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
     > > > **Atools.ietf.org
    <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt&url2=https:**A
     > > > tool
     > > > s.ietf.org
    <http://s.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!8WoA6R
     > > > jC81
    c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNV_eTUEh
     > > > $
    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
     > > > **Atools.ietf.org
    <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt&url2=https:**A
     > > > tool
     > > > s.ietf.org
    <http://s.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!8WoA6R
     > > > jC81
    c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sNd1njcX
     > > > $>
     > > >
     > > > Cheers
     > > >     Toerless
     > > >
     > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Mike McBride wrote:
     > > > > How about three? I support.
     > > > > mike
     > > > >
     > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:42 AM Greg Shepherd
    <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]>>> wrote:
     > > > > >
     > > > > > We cannot take two 'yes' votes and WG consensus.
     > > > > > Please, read and respond. If you don't support, then
    please vote as much publicly right here.
     > > > > >
     > > > > > Thanks,
     > > > > > Greg
     > > > > >
     > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
    <[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]>>> wrote:
     > > > > >>
     > > > > >> Support:
     > > > > >>
     > > > > >> I see great value in deterministic networks as well as
    IOT (with RPL).
     > > > > >>
     > > > > >> All the best,
     > > > > >>
     > > > > >> Pascal
     > > > > >>
     > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
     > > > > >> > From: BIER
     > > > > >> > <[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]>>> On
     > > > > >> > Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
     > > > > >> > Sent: mardi 4 juin 2019 02:03
     > > > > >> > To: Greg Shepherd
     > > > > >> > <[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]>>>
     > > > > >> > Cc: BIER WG <[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>>
     > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch
     > > > > >> >
     > > > > >> > +1
     > > > > >> > Obviously support as co-author.
     > > > > >> >
     > > > > >> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:41:26PM -0700, Greg
    Shepherd wrote:
     > > > > >> > > Please read and respond to this thread w/ or w/o
    support.
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker..ietf.org
     > > > > >> > > /doc
    /draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_s
     > > > > >> > > ercw ZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNV9eClBj$
     > > > > >> > >
    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/
     > > > > >> > > doc/
    draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanx
     > > > > >> > > s6vI b_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sD40kmtH$>
     > > > > >> > >
     > > > > >> > > Vote ends 5 June 2019.
     > > > > >> > >
     > > > > >> > > Thanks,
     > > > > >> > > Shep
     > > > > >> > > (chairs)
     > > > > >> >
     > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
     > > > > >> > > BIER mailing list
     > > > > >> > > [email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
     > > > > >> > > list
    info/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eE
     > > > > >> > > NOs4 l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
     > > > > >> > >
    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/
     > > > > >> > > list
    info/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6b
     > > > > >> > > oAAW 4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
     > > > > >> >
     > > > > >> > _______________________________________________
     > > > > >> > BIER mailing list
     > > > > >> > [email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/li
     > > > > >> > stin
    fo/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4
     > > > > >> > l_qd
     > > > > >> > sXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
     > > > > >> >
    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/li
     > > > > >> > stin
    fo/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW
     > > > > >> > 4nrq
     > > > > >> > ju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
     > > > > >
     > > > > > _______________________________________________
     > > > > > BIER mailing list
     > > > > > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]>>
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
     > > > > > nfo/
    bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsX
     > > > > > F0Kw
     > > > > > ZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
     > > > > > nfo/
    bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju
     > > > > > 8UCL
     > > > > > OgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
     > > >
     > > > --
     > > > ---
     > > > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]>>
     > > >
     > > > _______________________________________________
     > > > BIER mailing list
     > > > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]
    <mailto:[email-masked]>>
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
     > > > bier
    __;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82
     > > > cJLD
     > > > FFNT2WVXWX$
    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
     > > > bier
    __;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiu
     > > > Xc8Y
     > > > _6sKn2KoAT$>
     > >
     > > --
     > > ---
     > > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
     >
     > --
     > ---
     > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
     >
     > _______________________________________________
     > BIER mailing list
     > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
     >
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
    __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzHOCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx4
     > 1_jWV3YUA6D$

    --
    ---
    [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

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

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:20:01 +0100

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/

Thanks, Lou

This document just took longer than hoped to get to this stage, it
hasn't technically changed (except minor details) from what i gave
an overview of @IETF101 detnet:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-detnet-sessb-bier-te-overview

Text of course should be a lot better now (had very helfpull reviews..).

The one mayor change for an overall "detnet" style scaling BIER
solution is the introduction of the transit-hop per-flow stateless
latency managemenet (to support bounded latency) via 
draft-qiang-detnet-large-scale-detnet (aka: cyclic queuing),
but i think i did mention it during the presentation.

I also added a section to that end (relationship BIER-TE to TE overall)
because of Lou's feedback (thanks again).

Cheers
    Toerless

> One more week of WGLC. Please read the latest rev and respond to this thread
> w/wo support.
> 
> Chairs
> (Shep)
> 
> 
> <zzhang=[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> wrote:
> 
>    Hi Toerless,
> 
>    Thanks!

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

-- 
---
[email-masked]