IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] 答复: draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022

Feng Yang <yangfeng@chinamobile.com> Tue, 30 August 2022 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <yangfeng@chinamobile.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 7ED10C1594B4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 20:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OcgwTbLugmuL for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 20:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta2.chinamobile.com (cmccmta2.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84550C1594A3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 20:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.9]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app05-12005 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee5630d7d5ff3a-73e54; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:00:47 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee5630d7d5ff3a-73e54
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from YANGPC (unknown[10.2.51.79]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr05-12005 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee5630d7d5becf-37f77; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:00:47 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee5630d7d5becf-37f77
From: Feng Yang <yangfeng@chinamobile.com>
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, idr@ietf.org
References: <BYAPR08MB487272B6440945C76FACC0D8B36A9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB487272B6440945C76FACC0D8B36A9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:00:46 +0800
Message-ID: <00b701d8bc1c$b3f873a0$1be95ae0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B8_01D8BC5F.C21BB3A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdiySb9LAa1ZOpItTciSP4+WVLsPJAJ0koXw
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7hEhPkjASnX0UKve44eUfUesBRE>
Subject: [Idr] 答复: draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 30 Aug 2022 03:00:52 -0000

Hi folks,

 

I support adoption of this draft as working group document.

 

1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the 

action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found

draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt 

 

Yes, agree.

 

2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature 

in addition to  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/

 

Yes, agree. 

 

See the following thread for a discussion of this in March: 

 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HENTMEoiMJGmcMuVz7LTYclCSdw/

 

3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks? 

 

Yes, for sure

 

BR£¬

 

Ñî·æ

Feng Yang

 

·¢¼þÈË: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] ´ú±í Susan Hares
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2022Äê8ÔÂ17ÈÕ 22:59
ÊÕ¼þÈË: idr@ietf.org
Ö÷Ìâ: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to
8/31/2022

 

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/

 

During your discussion of this draft, please consider: 

 

1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the 

action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found

draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt 

 

Figure 1 : Local Administrator

 

0                   1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

|          Reserved           |C|

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 

C = 0 ¨C redirect original flow 

C = 1 ¨C redirect copy of original flow 

 

This bit augments the Redirect to IP action in RFC8955 

And RFC8956. 

 

2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature 

in addition to  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/

 

See the following thread for a discussion of this in March: 

 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HENTMEoiMJGmcMuVz7LTYclCSdw/

 

3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks? 

 

We¡¯ll discuss this draft at the IDR interim on 8/29/2022. 

 

Cheerily, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email