[Idr] 回复: WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn Tue, 03 November 2020 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB0B3A14CF for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:31:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PiD9qkFgy0ej for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB723A14CE for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clientip- (unknown []) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 62E4A2800B5; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:31:15 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 44031110@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([]) by App0025 with ESMTP id 0ae08a1c8e4347829d11793b538e78a2 for idr@ietf.org; Tue Nov 3 14:31:18 2020
X-Transaction-ID: 0ae08a1c8e4347829d11793b538e78a2
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
From: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, idr@ietf.org
References: <050501d6b0d5$877d5970$96780c50$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <050501d6b0d5$877d5970$96780c50$@ndzh.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:31:07 +0800
Message-ID: <00bb01d6b1aa$f0bc0960$d2341c20$@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BC_01D6B1ED.FEE0D000"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQEvXptEERMy9oWMkRU4TGI7ipbTUasEl9UQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/04xtUI_uU24_Ckprkrt-RRvgeMo>
Subject: [Idr] 回复: WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:31:29 -0000

I am not aware of any IPR . Thanks.

B.R.  Yongqing




·¢¼þÈË: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> ´ú±í Susan Hares
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2020Äê11ÔÂ2ÈÕ 13:04
ÊÕ¼þÈË: idr@ietf.org
Ö÷Ìâ: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to


This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for 

draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu-04.txt (11/1 ¨C 11/16/2020). 


The authors should send in an IPR statement for this draft 

by 11/5 so the WG can include the IPR status in their decision. 


You can access the draft at: 



Since this draft is reference by an existing IDR draft

I¡¯ve included a bit of background below to help you place  

this draft into the larger context of the SR additions to BGP-LS

and the draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-19.txt.


This draft does continue BGP-LS additions.  if you 

are opposed to any BGP-LS additions rather than 

this specific addition, please make that clear in your 

comment in this discussion.   


The authors requested a WG adoption at IETF 108.  

The IDR co-chairs thank the authors for their patience.   

This draft has been delayed by process of having a 

new document shepherd (Sue Hares) come up to speed

on draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encapsulation. 


Cheers, Sue 




Segment Routing technology creates SR tunnels that are 

directly overlaid on MPLS or SRv6.  While existing MPLS technology 

(LDP and RSV-TE) provides mechanisms to negotiate path MTU

based on individual link MTU limits, the Segment Routing (SR) 

on BGP-LS Link Attribute does not pass information on 

MTU size per link.   


draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-02.txt sends PATH MTU 

information in the tunnel-encapsulation attribute for the tunnel type  

SR-Policy that handles segment routing (SR) paths.       

However, it lacks the information to create a reasonable 

Path size since the BGP-LS Link Attribute does distribute

this information. 


The draft proposes adding a new sub-TLV for MTU size 

to the BGP-LS Link Attribute TLV, and 

draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-02.txt mentions this 

draft as one possible way to distribute the per link 



Questions for the authors might be: 

a) Are there ways to pass IGP link MTUs in 

the IGPs?  If so, is this needed in BGP-LS


b) What other mechanisms pass link MTU?