IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-04 (3/10 to 3/24)

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 10 March 2022 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 A38853A1742 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 06:38:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.061
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.061 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Un0N0Q0Fub_l for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 06:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 533D83A1745 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 06:38:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.120.176;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 09:38:43 -0500
Message-ID: <00ca01d8348c$8b05d270$a1117750$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CB_01D83462.A231C640"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Adg0iU/LdOzWENOQQCinCgHK9waz6g==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/C09mjcf3B5yahPIPSjrsD86EOxM>
Subject: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-04 (3/10 to 3/24)
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 14:38:57 -0000

Greeting: 

 

This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call (3/10/2022 to 3/24/2022) 

for draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-04

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities/

 

In your comments please consider if: 

 

1) Do the additions to BGP (2 Communities and 

TLV for next-hop-capability attribute) 

help the distribute information regarding the  IFIT options 

from tail (egress) nodes to head nodes (ingress)?  

 

Are there any cases where these BGP 

Communities should be removed or ignored?  

 

 

2) Are the mechanisms (2 Communities and 

attribute TLV) correctly specified? 

 

3) How do these additions interaction with the 

  With SR technology for IFIT described in 

   draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit, and its 

   use of RFC9012 (tunnel attributes)? 

 

(Authors an example on how these

technologies work together or 

 operate separately would be helpful). 

 

4)  Will this addition help network operators 

deploying IFIT technology? 

 

 

Cheerily, Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email