Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Thu, 15 April 2021 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0F83A0A3F; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ILaCVSsrkdIp; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22503A0A38; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 4706E1C0091; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:50:31 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)'" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
References: <2256F373-A559-4839-9A6F-6B075DD1D0E3@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <2256F373-A559-4839-9A6F-6B075DD1D0E3@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:50:30 +0800
Message-ID: <00cb01d731aa$7b4e9d70$71ebd850$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CC_01D731ED.897315F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHPmUfgcKX0lYaZQFB4zGCnOgBCd6rEFHeQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZQkxKTlYYTB4dGk9CTEMdSElVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR0UWUFZT0tIVU pKS0hKTFVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6Mk06Ngw*CT8cLBNWQwgZNlYx QxgwCxpVSlVKTUpDT05DTUhKQ0hCVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUhLQ0lONwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a78d3a6dcddd993kuws4706e1c0091
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/GyfhuWt6c_jdFZBk2UsVCmkh1Bc>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:50:41 -0000

Yes,Support its adoption.

I think this draft gives the operator confidences to deploy pure IPv6 transport network in coming days.

 

Some comments for the drafts are below:

1.     Should the test scenarios, test items and test results be described in more detail in the body of this draft?

2.     I think such guidelines can also be used within the operator’s network domain(PE-RR, or PE-PE), not only the emphasized PE-CE edge.

3.     Is it necessary for the section 4?  I think changing that content to describe some guidelines for how to using the RFC 8950 may be more beneficial?

 

Some Nits:

1.     Section 8  Security Considerations:

“The extensions defined in this document allow BGP to propagate reachability information about IPv6 routes over an MPLS IPv4 core network.”

Should it be:

“The extensions defined in this document allow BGP to propagate reachability information about IPv4 routes over an IPv6 core network.” 

 

2.     Section 6 “Operational Consideration”  said “Both IPv4 and IPv6 peer now exists under the IPv6 address family configuration.”  

Should it be “Both IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes reachable information now exists under the IPv6 address family configuration.”

 

3.     A.1 Router and Switch Vendors Support and Quality Assurance:

GUI----》GUA

 

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: bess-bounces@ietf.org <bess-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:37 PM
To: draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

 

Hello,

 

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03 [1].

 

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

 

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

 

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

 

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

 

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

 

This poll for adoption closes on April 27th 2021.

 

Regards,

Matthew and Stephane

 

 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh/