Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Fri, 06 November 2020 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@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 1AA5C3A0B28 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:04:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.104
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Buq9SZpExLbU for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:03:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16CEE3A0B21 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:03:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CS3Yg1XJgz67J8C for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:02:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 03:03:54 +0100
Received: from DGGEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.40) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 03:03:54 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.249]) by dggeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:03:51 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
Thread-Index: AdawxZFiqE7+Vp6ETxeuJxQP7/0gpQAI21pgAJ5iEGAAH1b6UA==
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 02:03:50 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C8CD19@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <045d01d6b0c7$c5eb4900$51c1db00$@ndzh.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C8C060@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <MW3PR11MB4570CC6BD1260FB4128804A7C1EE0@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB4570CC6BD1260FB4128804A7C1EE0@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.130]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C8CD19dggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FD1tZrmsH8ais5swmZGObDqsRU8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
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, 06 Nov 2020 02:04:00 -0000

Hi Ketan,

Many thanks for your reply. It addresses my comments.

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ketant@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 7:05 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>om>; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Hi Cheng,

Please check inline below.

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 05 November 2020 15:53
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Yes, support with comments and questions.


  1.  Q: Last time we discussed that do we need to carry SRv6 Endpoint behavior TLV for END.X SID, I think the answer is no. This TLV is used for SRv6 SID NLRI only, correct? Just to double check.
[KT] Yes, you are correct. The draft does say it is for SRv6 SID NLRI : https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04#section-7.1



  1.  Q: if we meet an error in BGP-LS, do we have any error handling? Like in PCEP, we need to check the sum of lengths each part of SRv6 SID, if the length is larger than 128 bits, this is an error. But I don't see the error handling in BGP-LS extensions.  It may be good to add  some text of usage, processing and handling of TLVs. Current revision seems a little bit simple to me.
[KT] We do not perform semantic validation of TLVs in BGP-LS. Please see my response to another similar comment here : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CNcjA-nBd7IvUTKgllqdIu0mXEk/

Thanks,
Ketan


a) Is the SRv6 technology ready for deployment or
are there known issues?

Yes.

b) Will SRv6 provide valuable support for
deployments of BGP-LS in support of source routing
(aka spring)?

Yes.

c) Is this draft ready for publication?

If you know of additional implementations, please send
a note to the idr chairs with the information or
respond to this email.

With comments.

Cheng




From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 11:25 AM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

This begins an IPR call and a 2 week WG LC for
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1 to 11/16/2020)

You can access the draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo/

This draft focus on the BGP-LS support for SRv6.
Spring has proposed the SRv6 support in RFC8402
(see section 3.1.3 for mechanisms and section 8.2 for
Security considerations).

There are two implementations: Cisco and GoBGP
You can see the implementation report at:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations

In your responses, please consider the following questions:
a) Is the SRv6 technology ready for deployment or
are there known issues?

b) Will SRv6 provide valuable support for
deployments of BGP-LS in support of source routing
(aka spring)?

c) Is this draft ready for publication?

If you know of additional implementations, please send
a note to the idr chairs with the information or
respond to this email.

Cheers, Susan Hares