[Idr] Comments on draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect
Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 16 March 2019 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.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 BC95A130DDA for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 OFml6pJXrJSp for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FB4E130DBE for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id n11so11316923ioh.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DgihKjmN+ezhUwfIsOOOGs6FmcLYU8+ZKbueituSEUo=; b=eOeNF+P8PTa3OAFXYRuwXH68huETr31pqVdmmcV7b4Fak71yjdVqg9LyDZ47+1xlIa EW5G7pAY/1C/MoKaq9TkJYba7E/wapB0PTDGsMf/UTMTmLGPJCg9TX3UeTtjGuciKfE7 dFlrcA4e28IqMKBdGLBH7KCvkmXVN1B1K8Gq2OXWhHqfOeaLPw3Unhr4ak5Le63bMxym 4lA+h4/aTVCXCucWMiO/lP436s121jKe/RGFet33X+0dh+1FL/4NCW/7fRgubQprHCDv tyBN38kdoSbem4Jf9dqp4DGqrnPovIZhC+jBikIcaXB+PsHRn+luS84dg2hUmZMvu8Lq D2aw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DgihKjmN+ezhUwfIsOOOGs6FmcLYU8+ZKbueituSEUo=; b=fzVP2LAnYDokPa/tMZ+O8h5SYvVNmfld8f/LtdDMVvTy+XBIZBdowECIgAF+rCmjJE hVOJY+ucSAQ42BjUUaoHu4cgaYbgh+m2umA/iWckhx3sMoju21RPnfefq3uQGjaPTuYy 1oHjKBil3BBdV1UbfqRMat4gju4ObA5NjOIFyjBg6xof14LfYRy41aXDHqBrIUnrBOVd +smXwK9AyDoDpn9BjJItu6+umdQ2KcU/pNgZ0Eux+6SC2wXHEvC/7VuohYZeO3DO7HA2 ASEkuEuE0bKEBXUz/9nFczPlf805vUhZh/OlUWx3l7LtLqZt7JRUPuKnS1g6eQs6lp9r IE9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVWkEETolE1thMYbTVgac+UIscotOolgXv9XJn/Vr46ULnVqb6i 6ImDpTSbw+2J357y+rHrC5ya16eCIHQY6MRRGrY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxuTgkVPuHixwTWyY267HX+7rQBAL3qM44R8QVtuKN10Ye4Cw34q/D550Pd/LXBfP+YEgfRxCbRGABgoFZvRwo=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:8b90:: with SMTP id n138mr6521544iod.75.1552768359595; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:32:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKFJ8epSMnPoWBD865M4OowgZVKfj6RRGFdgW-dYdMNVBzXRsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007e00b505843c0e4c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/3eCpo9PPIfp44roi9Fi9WjTzVY8>
Subject: [Idr] Comments on draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect
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: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 20:32:42 -0000
Hi Van de Velde, When I was reading this draft, I found this draft miss the consideration on the concept of "color". Color now has been defined in a couple of drafts and becoming an important concept. There can be at least two usages along with flowspec so far I have found: 1. redirect to a color of a SR policy (refer to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy). This draft defines the concept of SR policy which can install a list of segments allowing per-flow based source routing. To allow usage of SR-policy along with draft (redirect to a SR-policy), we can simply use BSID which has been defined in the current draft. But there is also a scenario defined called "color only steering in section 8.8.1" I would suggest taking into consideration. 2. Flex-Algo By redirecting to color, we are able to redirect traffic to another alogo topology/slice. By the way, I didn't see the resilence consideration in this draft as the redirected path is always a BSID, and there is no place to pre-install the backup path. Did I miss something here? What is your idea about this? Comments above apply to your ietf0-srv6 one :) Thanks in advance. Regards, Tim
- [Idr] Comments on draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-re… Yu Tianpeng
- Re: [Idr] Comments on draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-pat… guntervandeveldecc