Re: [GROW] IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02

[Xu Xiaohu <[e-mail]>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Joel M.
> Halpern
> 发送时间: 2010年6月24日 23:33
> 收件人: Christopher Morrow
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: [GROW] IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement
about
> IPR related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02
> 
> While autoconfig is not "necessary" in order to have a working VA
> system, I think it (some form of autoconfig) is necessary in order to
> have a deployable and operable VA system.  Given that GROW is supposed
> to be focussed on operability, I am not at all sure we should drop
> autoconfig.
> 
> {For context, the many concern I heard expressed at the early grow
> presentations was concern that the complexity of configuration made the
> system error prone and sufficient expensive, in terms of operational
> cost, that it woudl cost more than it would save.)

I fully agree with Joel's concern. When you consider a real operational VA
system, you would have to consider how to make the configuration task as
easy as possible. For the purpose of experiment, the VP-list tool is enough.
However, for a product network, is it acceptable for the network operators
to configure/maintain the identical VP-list on all VA routers? Besides, to
alleviate the heavy traffic pressure on the APRs, those popular prefixes for
high-volume traffic should be installed into FIB by all BGP routers as
normal. Is it acceptable for the network operators to configure/maintain the
large volume of popular prefixes on all VA routers?

With the auto-configure mechanism defined in the current VA-auto draft, the
network operator just need to configure the VP-range and the pop-prefix-list
on those local ASBRs which are connected to its peer ASes and transit ASes,
and those ASBRs in turn will classify the e-BGP learnt routes into two types
according to the configured VP-range and the pop-prefix-list:
can-be-suppressed and can-not-be-suppressed, and attach the "can-suppress"
tag to those can-be-suppressed prefixes when adverting them to their iBGP
peers which, in turn, just need to selectively install the received routes
according the "can-suppress" tag of the routes and their own roles (i.e.,.
ARP or non-APR).

In a word, I don't think the auto-config mechanism is optional and
dispensable.

Best wishes,
Xiaohu

> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Paul Francis <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> >> As it was, I was about to ask the list if folks thought VA could move
> >> towards an informational RFC, or if folks felt that more implementation
> >> experience were needed.  Currently we have a linux/quagga
implementation
> >> that does not include MPLS tunneling.  I'm not sure the status of the
> >> Huawei implementation, but it is not to the point where it can be
tested
> >> against the linux implementation.  In any event, VA doesn't require
> >> wire-protocol changes, and I can well imagine that only once folks
start
> >> trying to deploy it will we really learn what configurations work best
(at
> >> which point we can document that).  In other words, even if we did have
a
> >> couple working implementations, there would be much more to learn from
> >> real deployments.
> >>
> >> I wasn't aware of the IPR.  According to the statement, it covers
> >> technology in draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-01.  This covers a way to
simplify
> >> configuration of the so-called VP-list.  This approach is not mentioned
in
> >> either of the main drafts (draft-ietf-grow-va-02 or
> >> draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-00).  My personal feeling is that this
approach
> >> is not very critical to the operation of VA, but lacking experience I
> >> could certainly be wrong.  In fact, if you look at the 00 draft of
> >> auto-config, you'll see that there was a second method proposed for
> >> auto-config which has pros and cons relative to Huawei's approach.
This
> >> was dropped from the 01 version primarily so as to keep things
simple...I
> >> don't think any of the non-Huawei authors felt strongly about these
> >> approaches one way or the other.
> >>
> >> Bottom line, I don't think this IPR should impinge moving the two main
> >> drafts forward---first because it is optional, and second because there
> >> are alternatives.  There are a couple ways we could move forward:
> >>
> >> 1.  Stick with the set of drafts we have now (the two main drafts, and
the
> >> optional auto-config draft with the IPR).
> >> 2.  Revive the second auto-config method so as to have a published
> >> non-encumbered option (probably as a separate draft so that it is clear
> >> what is and is not encumbered).
> >> 3.  Drop the auto-config draft, and continue forward with only the two
> >> main drafts.
> >
> > my feeling is if the autoconfig isn't necessary, and is encumbered how
> > about we live without it if possible :)
> > (w/participant hat)
> > -Chris
> >
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> PF
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From:   Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>
> >> To:     [e-mail]
> >> Cc:     [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> >> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> >> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> >> Date:   06/23/2010 09:46 PM
> >> Subject:        Re: IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's
> >> Statement about IPR     related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Grow-folk,
> >> we should probably decide whether this is a blocking issue for VA
> >> progression or not... I believe the ietf stance is that IPR claims are
> >> fine, if there aren't other non-encumbered options available.
> >>
> >> -Chris
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM, IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Dear Lixia Zhang, Robert Raszuk, Xiaohu Xu, Dan Jen, Hitesh Ballani,
> >> Paul Francis:
> >>> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "FIB
> >> Suppression
> >>> with Virtual Aggregation" (draft-ietf-grow-va) was submitted to the
IETF
> >>> Secretariat on 2010-06-23 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of
> >> Intellectual
> >>> Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1341/).
> >> The title
> >>> of the IPR disclosure is "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement
about
> >> IPR
> >>> related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02."
> >>>
> >>> The IETF Secretariat
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > GROW mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow