IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com> Fri, 03 April 2020 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45753A08A2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.com
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 TnsnLr9Q3DSz for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam12on20720.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe59::720]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0AC3A089C for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=PgNWb4IaaNNdD/iXSursxxA6F8h0pY+B8yxUKlbBOyXV7V837OX5MDTqoRq5dV4lwzd1IFP9myHO/lZBAQB9ORYnyqhAfPNwxsnpSyfl5pKzbPqrVhevWZEpYjlo6Ar6ExLF3n0JWCQ9p6bzX8CADtBJVYLdRZAh68KdbwpjJd+0NhOhNxtxcgiu5ipjAQu0OL4uTJCH5sLg+K4ZVz+iXEP8EOJA3pDFEizF+kYzFPFLvTM7nyQXXlifZ93Y2akrINegBdC/G21QTJxIiKxzEJMimyR19JncNhpHYs5gnmlhsx2BhymdQe9NX2usWcOa9SE64Q7JR/a7m6mn4BXVsQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=m0e/PxiKeCwz0jxS5tLiygqt8NqLSA5j/eWvy9l4+EE=; b=M5/nPNgTu8W7CivLo+yig1jH0So2OkfbkFqvwnLzQKwxT6KcYFnwxVTKF07b2T7q9dZamDqlEUcvUh+cKIuge1Dw7VzmJ4eJLhhzscEWlMTZEOTKWeEhT9ZeSX677wSsuoRWdxkLJ9zNg9fpADf2ugjoIoggYN8QqPp2LtHSSewPpZQnXQt8Aq8rGZxixFsFbxz72ry24V4NijMPsVPjirxZZKLCHr7MiCgla1LQ/dCN67xTaIDN1XwPZiO8uhxrF6gZUXxV5lHVTrw8EXdV4IgBRfdAICWlhU9ulyy0egXL1HLYIlU0c8vRXP0tJXbE69e38eTM3EJfKsPhlaq4Aw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=futurewei.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=futurewei.com; dkim=pass header.d=futurewei.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=m0e/PxiKeCwz0jxS5tLiygqt8NqLSA5j/eWvy9l4+EE=; b=hdmhQfGIabsLLR4wutn5V9uJtORYldvyQ2OrYrzV4do7nFAxhtrqf77TKD2qfEZwtWcSJHRr6cPra8CCPeKdjhGAxzQaEaIvilFu17lY3LN2x3+NYcZHIOEtPqS68XyjG90WkgjHtmn5sFi/2+83Dsb9dREk6pPtgVylQQIz4Ec=
Received: from MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:301:34::35) by MWHPR1301MB1966.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:301:30::29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2856.19; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0000
Received: from MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a934:b942:156f:d945]) by MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a934:b942:156f:d945%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2878.014; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0000
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "'shares@ndzh.com'" <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)
Thread-Index: AdYGjhUttAt3lPHsTfmnpSciWcUkAAC+IftQAAJY6PAAEXO1QA==
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR1301MB20962DBFAE3C5BBFB7BFAEB985C70@MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB029A90CE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB029A90CE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=linda.dunbar@futurewei.com;
x-originating-ip: [2605:6000:1526:d41e:f8f2:b132:58a2:62db]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 255084b2-6102-4cf8-2e48-08d7d7f45762
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR1301MB1966:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR1301MB1966D94AFC3A2C9628FBD59B85C70@MWHPR1301MB1966.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0362BF9FDB
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(39850400004)(366004)(396003)(136003)(346002)(376002)(86362001)(478600001)(76116006)(66556008)(316002)(53546011)(8936002)(64756008)(66446008)(66476007)(44832011)(7696005)(81166006)(8676002)(966005)(71200400001)(6506007)(110136005)(66946007)(2906002)(186003)(5660300002)(81156014)(9686003)(55016002)(33656002)(52536014)(491001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: futurewei.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: fJeaHTiVDoWeGVSG6fdqR8AryP8E/qOyjKSA54JIETU8+x0iwA8ydLeHXckrhE8UPCrc0uVPUB4pukxb/btrbl6oko0RBaRGedq+eIBZia1Ux8pW+lfPsFQQbEiIxkXCLJcb4Vgo0MLJbD1AqqiggTV0IkbsORQMaycDpPwn5lXjwiZO0JCQj6xqtFiJLuZuBU67bZNKaqhWvNA0CgVInA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR1301MB20962DBFAE3C5BBFB7BFAEB985C70MWHPR1301MB2096_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 255084b2-6102-4cf8-2e48-08d7d7f45762
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2020 17:27:53.3938 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: jG3F+V6SHj46G/55L9ukZGsBsEtOxyIK7U+QvqFS1dCmsig8ixZElHnOe6X2gyVdZohHlOdtEKL2mNohh2loqA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR1301MB1966
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_FKcDO7CsMVJ0UpCEuoZhRiBWbs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)
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: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 17:28:03 -0000

I have read the draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03 and I think it is very important subject to be specified. Therefore I support the WG Adoption of the draft, with the following comment:

The draft should add a paragraph to describe why can't each node simply drop the packet if the packet size is larger than it can support?
Since virtually all hosts send out MTU discovery (RFC8201) packets, if the network drops the packet due to the size exceeding the MTU, the source hosts will adjust the packet size. For communication between hosts, there are many layers of encapsulation added. Not just SR domain. The hosts have to adjust its packet size to reach their communication peers.

My two cents,

Linda Dunbar




From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 8:36 PM
To: 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt

You can view this draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C145ecee6a20e494beeb008d7d7a7399e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637214985553217711&sdata=cWgKd3GWCwcFaIyV%2FLn1KBWeaopBQdaOkXNQyFi5JvM%3D&reserved=0>

This draft distributes path maximum transmission unit for the
SR policy via BGP.

Any discussion regarding on whether one desires
SR Policy should be clearly distinguished from the
Technical discussions on the mechanisms to pass SR policy MTU.

The questions for the people to discuss on this draft are:

1) Is there a need for this mechanism in networks using
        MPLS-SR or SR-V6 and SR policy?

2) Are there any error handling issues besides what is being
     Taken care of in RFC7752bis-03.txt

3) Do you think this draft is ready to be adopted?
     In this category, please list any concerns you have
     regarding adoption.  This category can include
     general concerns about BGP-LS, MPLS-SR,
    SR-V6, and SR-Policy.

Cheers, Sue Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email