Subject: [Bier] FW: I-D Action: draft-kumar-bier-use-cases-01.txt

From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:34:20 +0000

Hi,

Below is the updated version of BIER use case draft.

Please read and share your comments.

Regards,
Nagendra

On 1/30/15, 3:40 PM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>directories.
>
>
>        Title           : BIER Use Cases
>        Authors         : Nagendra Kumar
>                          Rajiv Asati
>                          Mach(Guoyi) Chen
>                          Xiaohu Xu
>                          Andrew Dolganow
>                          Tony Przygienda
>                          Arkadiy Gulko
>	Filename        : draft-kumar-bier-use-cases-01.txt
>	Pages           : 11
>	Date            : 2015-01-30
>
>Abstract:
>   Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that
>   provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without
>   requiring intermediate routers to maintain any multicast related per-
>   flow state.  BIER also does not require any explicit tree-building
>   protocol for its operation.  A multicast data packet enters a BIER
>   domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the
>   BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs).
>   The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the packet.  The BIER header
>   contains a bit-string in which each bit represents exactly one BFER
>   to forward the packet to.  The set of BFERs to which the multicast
>   packet needs to be forwarded is expressed by setting the bits that
>   correspond to those routers in the BIER header.
>
>   This document describes some of the use-cases for BIER.
>
>
>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-bier-use-cases/
>
>There's also a htmlized version available at:
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-bier-use-cases-01
>
>A diff from the previous version is available at:
>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kumar-bier-use-cases-01
>
>
>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/
>
>_______________________________________________
>I-D-Announce mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:01:41 -0500

I have read the latest versions of the BIER problem statement and BEIR 
use case drafts.

I am still looking for a document that discusses (and preferably 
answers, but at least discusses) the cost of introducing a new data 
plane to address the problems, and the net benefit from doing so.
I expect that the introduction of BIER can be justified.  But I can not 
find where this is discussed.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:34:39 -0800

A cost analysis of any solution must include a description of the solution. This certainly does not belong in a problem statement draft.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 31, 2015, at 12:01, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I have read the latest versions of the BIER problem statement and BEIR use case drafts.
> 
> I am still looking for a document that discusses (and preferably answers, but at least discusses) the cost of introducing a new data plane to address the problems, and the net benefit from doing so.
> I expect that the introduction of BIER can be justified.  But I can not find where this is discussed.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> BIER mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:09:59 -0500

I do not know what draft it belongs in.  I named those two drafts 
because they, plus the architectural draft (which also seems the wrong 
place) are the ones I have available to understand the question.

While the details of the solution are still subject to debate, there is 
as far as I can tell general agreement on the shape of the solution we 
want to work on.  Which is, I think, a good thing.

 From my experience, without some discussion of how the costs relate to 
the benefits, the IESG is likely to have significant difficulty 
chartering work with a known high deployment cost.  Maybe we can get 
this chartered anyway?

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Robinson, Dom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 01:23:48 +0000

Hi guys - i wonder if it would be worth extending the IPTV section to
embrace content pre-placement in not only IPTV, but OTT and even
big-software update and other such CDN activity: I stay close to IP
Multicast specifically for this use case, and I always think it is
interesting that while live/linear is an obvious Multicast candidate,
pre-placing content in many caches that is known to be 'about to be heavily
requested' is actually an extremely valuable capability - even if it is not
live....

Just a thought.

While i am a n00b to the formality of an IETF draft, if you like i would be
happy to try to extend that IPTV paragraph to try to explain that 'CDN'
focussed use case...?

Let me know - ill try to contribute before the start of next week....

Kind regards

Dom

-- 
Dom Robinson
Co-Founder, Director and Creative Firestarter @ id3as-company ltd
Innovation, Development, Architecture, Strategy
for IT, Cloud and StreamingMedia Projects
uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson

Also Contributing Editor for www.StreamingMedia.com
http://www.streamingmediaglobal.com/Authors/4268-Dom-Robinson.htm