[Idr] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-09.txt> (Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP) to Proposed Standard
Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 02 November 2024 06:32 UTC
Return-Path: <ketant.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 68D3AC180B65; Fri, 1 Nov 2024 23:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ykLdBIKT7MVM; Fri, 1 Nov 2024 23:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93123C1522B9; Fri, 1 Nov 2024 23:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-21116b187c4so15684745ad.3; Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1730529174; x=1731133974; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=org/2q/PsKITM0Km4EqRPeUDOAKtJut7y9rUUDFsUkk=; b=X8mvYT2oNapvDMVf84HiV/LdR3tO88iFzJ5we+TuZWzROdCeglnGPqW2pQtx8j0yfe OKhXHRiTXO/v5qTulvX9vTLRn9mWrXmc3yBncixodlvH19H8sz3hcL8WGz/IX+eugKo2 qFgYFQ8LDQCZs5mWlQpIT9R+kSEg2Zq5iLNOT4FFNqaRtnjhfWMWSX8f5NQqMKwmYloE kCl8itPxW1RnvJyS4cI0SQVQGQLP0pE6QsQy64zNEDep6a3A+iEgTx8b0w5CimeIlfyU gOSYAAD6GUgocGARxk9S481SYCVWW39qBaVkrjCuhC4gPcl/rbAAIF2WMv7/HFiF/DLW TiMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1730529174; x=1731133974; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=org/2q/PsKITM0Km4EqRPeUDOAKtJut7y9rUUDFsUkk=; b=EPdk6bSmqnGxWZNPFLftF0Jx1bZ8RshdlBFVTXU/7TfsRp7JGseSmliBaRSbdbKbJQ iqaBbzBiEBbWqNpDIHNob1fXRSsQZEkCw7p3bt2NgW+dTn2M4dID4qUhLej4HGzDCktM 3jQisxPDLvzPOOkgzXOjNxOakCE+t/bPjHPsq9Vw2ulfFMatTxXhaUC/EMNDTsNYhok0 0Md6a+fwGAL5v9hIBawJ1chotOZzWET+vPD6Q4eOkWbmdrMyNUr8UzDeOb3rFxgOH1UN AudA30zHYWYlX4GbxJNz0iHuJlP/tb9IWvcGsL7v68vaUHlJ0nezUR4CM2BXRaF9tpc5 mTpw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUyBC0iAXTGmAYfzVSDxKqYG6To4dXXIVrfHaf7QjcMFi6mpToXlgDmiYF9KlxJAAP7kX/S@ietf.org, AJvYcCVWOMZwa/Lx6RW8ZHtKZ2wvK/GVdm+drfmau1kR/jVfLVNEQ0yPn08/V3aLHVgljanU7kNw+gzCtBMn/N3CVnUdrVpa/mdacUXviBI9tw==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YywHnTYm5wfMr/PFKNULRPRuYqV7ZgWd9Sbm6firqJpruwV6bwV JM5i3vohEnftfNI2X6BtGx+1u98G0dHqrRRCQ4i9XrZJ9yIG1z/aK8GxkkmTco+v63kQbscrwII 2EKB0somDpB5226WCddKQhtW/tuhW/QHN
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEGek8bOUEeHhkM3mfgrBtx6I8jdmqkqeLKGKYadn5k4fRnYxnfneJU0Gv+sFz7/iarUa4Guz9hHl8OON/Ood0=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:cf12:b0:210:f6ba:a8eb with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2111b0249abmr75248095ad.59.1730529173814; Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGoOuead-JfLOJWzWfsmeszeybzuDmDCpW325KRS3zDsdFDKcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGoOuead-JfLOJWzWfsmeszeybzuDmDCpW325KRS3zDsdFDKcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:02:41 +0530
Message-ID: <CAH6gdPyUjJN2-6iBZ8jPp8AVD3uxFgCNnQ-OUZJF0S2yyaC-vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rajesh MV <rajmv001@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: ZVXC7HZGKAS7BV4ZGMQWAXR724LBYDIV
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZVXC7HZGKAS7BV4ZGMQWAXR724LBYDIV
X-MailFrom: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: last-call@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-09.txt> (Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP) to Proposed Standard
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ASSWkk9wv8O0VXF1KWWEef7BpWQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Rajesh, Thanks for your review and comments. It is necessary to encode the SRv6 SID value first for encoding the optional SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and Structure. This is something that was not clear in the text in the two drafts and was brought up by Russ in his GenART review - please refer to [1]. Your query is related to the same and we'll clarify the text about the use of value 0 in such scenarios. I'll share the proposed text later today. Thanks, Ketan [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eEh7C902VY4FqujW7ul7mRnumt4/ On Sat, Nov 2, 2024 at 12:36 AM Rajesh MV <rajmv001@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello authors, > > > The encoding for the SRv6 BSID TLV requires the BSID to be present for signaling the Endpoint and Structure information. When a controller prefers not to specify the BSID (i.e., dynamic BSID allocation in the router) but still wants to indicate the desired behavior and structure, it can set the SRv6 BSID field to 0 with the S flag set to 0 and the B flag set to 1. Similarly, if the controller wants to specify flags (Eg: I-Flag) without providing a BSID, it can set the SRv6 BSID field to 0 and the S flag to 0. Is this correct ? The draft does not seem to clarify this. This is also the case for the segment types in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext where the SRv6 SID is optional. > > > Regards > > Rajesh > > > ======================================================================================================== > > The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to > consider the following document: - 'Advertising Segment Routing Policies in > BGP' > <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-09.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-11-11. Exceptionally, comments may > be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., > instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. An SR Policy > consists of one or more candidate paths, each consisting of one or > more segment lists. A headend may be provisioned with candidate > paths for an SR Policy via several different mechanisms, e.g., CLI, > NETCONF, PCEP, or BGP. > > This document specifies how BGP may be used to distribute SR Policy > candidate paths. It introduces a BGP SAFI to advertise a candidate > path of a Segment Routing (SR) Policy and defines sub-TLVs for the > Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for signaling information about these > candidate paths. > > This documents updates RFC9012 with extensions to the Color Extended > Community to support additional steering modes over SR Policy. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/ > > > The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2984/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5890/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5891/ > > > > The document contains these normative downward references. > See RFC 3967 for additional information: > rfc4272: BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream) > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy: Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies using BGP Link-State (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream) > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext: Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP SR Policy (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream) > rfc6952: Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream) > >
- [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-0… The IESG
- [Idr] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-sa… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Idr] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-sa… Rajesh MV
- [Idr] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-sa… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Idr] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-sa… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Idr] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-sa… Rajesh MV