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)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ketan,

Many thanks for your reply. It addresses my comments.

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 7:05 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <[e-mail]>om>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>om>; [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 05 November 2020 15:53
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 11:25 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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