Re: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

"Ran Pang(联通集团中国联通研究院- 本部)" <> Sun, 08 November 2020 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F503A0A21 for <>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 04:07:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.885
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmGgTumvaH7W for <>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 04:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E67D3A09FC for <>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 04:07:30 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 0a000f34-293ff70000002278-8c-5fa7df80db1b
Received: from M10-HQ-MLCEN04.cnc.intra (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 4F.D0.08824.08FD7AF5; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 20:07:28 +0800 (HKT)
Received: from M10-HQ-ML06.hq.cnc.intra ( by M10-HQ-MLCEN04.cnc.intra ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 20:07:28 +0800
Received: from M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra ( by M10-HQ-ML06.hq.cnc.intra ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 20:07:27 +0800
Received: from M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra ([fe80::1fb:119c:ef1:d250]) by M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra ([fe80::1fb:119c:ef1:d250%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 20:07:27 +0800
From: "Ran Pang(联通集团中国联通研究院- 本部)" <>
To: shares <>, idr <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
Thread-Index: AQHWtcchYc0UwsTdAkaJUW3//rjmag==
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 12:07:27 +0000
Message-ID: <69fee76c9ae34039b42f9e755dcf878a@M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra>
References: <050501d6b0d5$877d5970$96780c50$>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69fee76c9ae34039b42f9e755dcf878aM10HQML02hqcncintra_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC9fOKkm7D/eXxBntnG1u8uv2MyeLPm1cs DkweS5b8ZPKY/fo6awBTFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfGxIsTmAoebGesWDRlJUsD44dNjF2MnBwS AiYSf9duY+9i5OIQEjjPKNHQf5QFwtnOKHFjRRM7nDPhwUkmCGcfo8TfXatZQRw2gSZGiRPf 1zOBDBMRMJBY8+gqO4gtLBAjcXnOU6h4rETTl+3MELaexMePXWA2i4CKRM+3a2CH8Aq4S+xr WwlmCwmYSUx4vZYVxGYUkJWY9ug+2BxmAXGJudNmsUIcLiCxZM95ZghbVOLl439QcQOJrUv3 sUDYyhLTb+0DinMA9WZL7JyeCLFKUOLkzCcsEKuUJZqPT2edwCg2C8mGWQgds5B0QIQ1Jdbv 0oeoVpSY0v2QHcLWkGidM5cdWXwBI/sqRslgX3cLYwsDXX8jveSMzLzE0rzM5PxcveS8TYyg qGTgN9nBeO/WB71DjEwcjIcYJTiYlUR4W1yWxQvxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLnTedY FSckkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpg2jSrZuHkdyF2X6IWfTrqwvdkx6ymCMGkUKkzzDKaXF4H /gob/HI+2hLexWJitPh0uuYZQ516hk3tMtHlWgvLuOa5hLN8dzjIsP2k5Jffp2UPfHyY479l yUpp/usSf8X8krbphdS6+1U4ZHW/dbjdLmV5/+3G1ld7Sz8GCV8WmKx9NnEBi/repNcX5My3 ftpRJPpMc1IUx8QVM7+GLjnpMaOQySeji6Nglm2t95ekeRPeBvBN2OpyM3fTtl8OCYyzuK7m NB4/Z787fG/6IV1tp7xnL/VappgEdL7R3L3ew08wUMJF5bKrzA6tJzKPqvfO3Lfc9W336SkO a5ittdYIKLaeqpjQrHfw9wPJmG/KSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAy6fMzjkDAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 12:07:41 -0000

Hi All,

   I support the adoption of the draft.

Best regards,
Pang Ran

From: Susan Hares<>
Date: 2020-11-02 13:03
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu-04.txt (11/1 – 11/16/2020).

The authors should send in an IPR statement for this draft
by 11/5 so the WG can include the IPR status in their decision.

You can access the draft at:

Since this draft is reference by an existing IDR draft
I’ve included a bit of background below to help you place
this draft into the larger context of the SR additions to BGP-LS
and the draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-19.txt.

This draft does continue BGP-LS additions.  if you
are opposed to any BGP-LS additions rather than
this specific addition, please make that clear in your
comment in this discussion.

The authors requested a WG adoption at IETF 108.
The IDR co-chairs thank the authors for their patience.
This draft has been delayed by process of having a
new document shepherd (Sue Hares) come up to speed
on draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encapsulation.

Cheers, Sue

Segment Routing technology creates SR tunnels that are
directly overlaid on MPLS or SRv6.  While existing MPLS technology
(LDP and RSV-TE) provides mechanisms to negotiate path MTU
based on individual link MTU limits, the Segment Routing (SR)
on BGP-LS Link Attribute does not pass information on
MTU size per link.

draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-02.txt sends PATH MTU
information in the tunnel-encapsulation attribute for the tunnel type
SR-Policy that handles segment routing (SR) paths.
However, it lacks the information to create a reasonable
Path size since the BGP-LS Link Attribute does distribute
this information.

The draft proposes adding a new sub-TLV for MTU size
to the BGP-LS Link Attribute TLV, and
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-02.txt mentions this
draft as one possible way to distribute the per link

Questions for the authors might be:
a) Are there ways to pass IGP link MTUs in
the IGPs?  If so, is this needed in BGP-LS

b) What other mechanisms pass link MTU?

如果您错误接收了该邮件,请通过电子邮件立即通知我们。请回复邮件到,即可以退订此邮件。我们将立即将您的信息从我们的发送目录中删除。 If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately by e-mail. Please reply to ,you can unsubscribe from this mail. We will immediately remove your information from send catalogue of our.