Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Fri, 09 August 2019 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.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 9E8F31200A3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 19:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wBcDpdIkhmdr for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 57C6912004E for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 005B37A5711DBAB78560 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 03:43:39 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 03:43:39 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.242]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:43:36 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]
Thread-Index: AdVOH5HoHfsN7/tjRt2OgDiNu7rv6QAOQhOg
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 02:43:35 +0000
Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CCFFEB7A@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <000c01d54e1f$db81b080$92851180$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <000c01d54e1f$db81b080$92851180$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.151.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CCFFEB7ANKGEML515MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BNK8dBl9j5Ste2pqXxIc0VJAlR0>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]
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, 09 Aug 2019 02:43:45 -0000

Hi,

In general I support the adoption of this document. It helps to clarify some confusions in RFC7752, and to solve some issues we realized during the progress of subsequent BGP-LS extensions.

And here are the comments I raised on the mic during IDR session in Montreal:

In section 4.2.2 of this -bis document, there are some changes to the encoding rules of link local/remote identifiers in the Link descriptors.

"    If interface and neighbor addresses, either IPv4 or IPv6, are
      present, then the IP address TLVs MUST be included and the Link
      Local/Remote Identifiers TLV MUST NOT be included in the Link
      Descriptor.  The Link Local/Remote Identifiers TLV MAY be included
      in the link attribute when available.

      If interface and neighbor addresses are not present and the link
      local/remote identifiers are present, then the Link Local/Remote
      Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the Link Descriptor."

While in draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19, section 4.2, it says:

" o  Link Descriptors MUST include the following TLV, as defined in
      [RFC7752]:

      *  Link Local/Remote Identifiers (TLV 258) contains the 4-octet
         Link Local Identifier followed by the 4-octet Link Remote
         Identifier.  The value 0 is used by default when the link
         remote identifier is unknown.

   o  Additional Link Descriptors TLVs, as defined in [RFC7752], MAY
      also be included to describe the addresses corresponding to the
      link between the BGP routers:

      *  IPv4 Interface Address (Sub-TLV 259) contains the address of
         the local interface through which the BGP session is
         established."

Thus it seems the above text in -7752bis is somewhat inconsistent with the bgp-ls-epe draft. Could this be considered in next revision of the bis draft, or the bgp-ls-epe draft? Thanks.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 3:31 AM
To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>;
Subject: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

This begins a 2 week adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22/2019]

In your comments please indicate "support" or "no support".

The chair and AD feel that a revision to RFC7752 is needed
to specify additional error handling.  Please consider
if this draft is a good place to start for this revision.

Cheerily, Susan Hares