Return-Path: 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 B9E5B3A1406; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 01:17:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Cc5Lba/Y; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=TfA0oSbZ 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 icsIfoHpzNZn; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 01:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD6C13A0C5A; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 01:17:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13656; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1585901876; x=1587111476; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=3XgS+EYGBDmjwbKI7D/Hj+nbj+iaWklhxTCysUYnrrQ=; b=Cc5Lba/Y+oqqc8JVZhnkb+xZaTR0TsEMAuzoboxk+I3AS5Cw2Q6lHQ2H dJzVDWyYDzXEKJD3SGxmffbOQ5yty0uGJwRWvos7W5ckp6zBp3UJKBMLl yNv1xAuFhT7rj7jaIEEf534ABqlSAntYD1AKK2IXFHkXA3yVHF43una1z U=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AdF6b3RSSIsGQf444c7gTX8653dpsv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESUDNfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH1?= =?us-ascii?q?5g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOi83AM1ESHdu/mqwNg5eH8OtL1A=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A4AgAt8IZe/4ENJK1mHAEBAQEBBwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEQEEBAEBgWoEAQELAYEkLyQsBWxYIAQLKgqHVgOKZ4Jfkz2EYYJSA1QKAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BDAEBIwoCBAEBhEQCgkMkNwYOAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQUEbYVWDIVwAQEBAQM?= =?us-ascii?q?SCxATAQE3AQ8CAQgOAwQBASQLMh0IAQEEAQ0FCBqDBYF+TQMuAQ6jPgKBOYh?= =?us-ascii?q?igieCfwEBBYFDQYM3GIIMAwaBOAGFIQ2HAhqBQT+BEAFDgk0+gmcBAQIBAYF?= =?us-ascii?q?jJAeDF4IsjhWIa4oxj1kKgj2Ge3CPUYJMiDeQdoRWilaJIpJ5AgQCBAUCDgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBYFoI4FXcBU7gmlQGA2OHTiDO4UUhUF0AoEnjSwBgQ8BAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,339,1580774400"; d="scan'208,217";a="741471952" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Apr 2020 08:17:55 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0338HtA1020123 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Apr 2020 08:17:55 GMT Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 03:17:54 -0500 Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 04:17:53 -0400 Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 03:17:53 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=boWC9b5ANX4UBzpaj7gxPu9eBYYZdkqn0CSAnKBkD4Nn4cvalSbVnEOcXsXtIfAe6AztMiaF9bMXJWPS9UyOUpSJ61b7gR+ZtCzQvsplFvBEFPI6gGneuT6rsf1sncToiEdiXGOS4VGy1eV9xmUpcwkMhpwa5AomfpGKFe0Xn1qtB7ZKXk7FbHuMQpiw1RXhdcMHRTKRuWTHOlv5nOVrFDfsDRip+xTjxX0H/0gM0JjN9IVcZ5cUTjqwWTKlqksNw05PfOl0XI9Zgo/oA7MM+KTqYla7+VSJ5IrGjZRjdc07Qk3qIGulVpXGsCgDYQ5hvScDpjQ7UUTgxvXYACfWTA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nnkXanKtDl8uI87MFNHJDTM1f62jKGAh2o5axEoP6xc=; b=X481D2OW56NlSG5qA7mFAIgsA1L9m/v7Pt3362UTvl2SWif565Hc2zuKLwYPUOMwhVztf4+7UGDSthyEf/qzewI+gXBlzHnTYA92hORXtAD0FUkOAuoJGQScOAru+kX1G3aq5+h5cBURLKvDHOwspbUXR0ecxgbpnwHD234Iw0vfWBbSm0JxTETfRT1jg28H7GN+9hP/xiBxHJZCS4GcfRBQThGqZjGVZxBcA/nfZxe/9um3LDjZvQ1wN5S2nrRWlj2Z84MCJn6M9ZlP6kj6noXauqRYsLCR06Yh05OfbKtDxaaSAJI9Ar/dtuiN96huOmR7voVTgwugIw+7/zCxxw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nnkXanKtDl8uI87MFNHJDTM1f62jKGAh2o5axEoP6xc=; b=TfA0oSbZhQiUO2g+l/Ib5Y3ogHax+ZhmwhBisZK/HVO4J8s6ZDyjyiTgR/QS8tv1I0dYPwrj7+vd1widj6ydGElco8Xxxmz2nEXihKaE01aZWPBJajj4brFaDtnzXsRF62bGbJUuNMwDJaAz2h9b0HcDVS65+IOdU/uxEdHdOiQ= Received: from MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:5f::22) by MW3PR11MB4745.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:5e::9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2878.16; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 08:17:52 +0000 Received: from MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dc3d:f0de:21ec:cf87]) by MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dc3d:f0de:21ec:cf87%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2878.018; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 08:17:52 +0000 From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" To: Susan Hares , "'IDR List'" CC: SPRING WG Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13) Thread-Index: AdYGjhUttAt3lPHsTfmnpSciWcUkAAC/+rEw Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 08:17:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com> In-Reply-To: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ketant@cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [72.163.220.7] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e63c51fa-51ab-4677-6d66-08d7d7a7818c x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MW3PR11MB4745: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 0362BF9FDB x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(81156014)(9326002)(86362001)(966005)(55016002)(33656002)(478600001)(8676002)(9686003)(7696005)(81166006)(66946007)(66446008)(4326008)(53546011)(66556008)(64756008)(52536014)(66476007)(71200400001)(110136005)(26005)(6506007)(8936002)(186003)(76116006)(2906002)(5660300002)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: rJAC8ebhSbXVr1xUZ5Y/Kyf+jISSQ+x+BFeFjqym2EkVshqMFINrTWVPQ7Cuy01m/DIgWgX4l9/0oXr4viQGmJLdWHsxpMyLx/qYfC0fbup26Vlj/GBYN5UvMwxfKRUBH9a06SMQdDmeU9McST6Z8g== x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MW3PR11MB45709BBDB2AD9FF81494A0CCC1C70MW3PR11MB4570namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e63c51fa-51ab-4677-6d66-08d7d7a7818c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2020 08:17:52.3911 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: PpYWzEifHwWLiVwMj3bi+ii27QbAYNO6LDHBNwEAINg03dxAkslv5aHReBd0W55jH9wVODeQ616bAReuIEACmA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW3PR11MB4745 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13) X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org 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: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 08:17:59 -0000 --_000_MW3PR11MB45709BBDB2AD9FF81494A0CCC1C70MW3PR11MB4570namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I have a few questions for the authors of this draft and some discussion po= ints for the WG. 1. What is precisely the definition of this "path MTU" for an SR Policy?= I am guessing that it includes all the labels/SIDs that are used for the S= R path? 2. While https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3209#section-2.6 defines "path M= TU" for RSVP-TE LSPs, it does describe the procedures for the same for hand= ling IP packets/payloads on the headend. It does not cover the scenarios wh= ere the incoming packets may be themselves labelled. 3. Shouldn't the concept of "path MTU" for SR Policies and its' applicab= ility and operations be first defined in a (Spring WG?) document before we = introduce its signalling aspects in protocols like BGP? Note that such a do= cument would bring in requirements and guidelines for how the value is goin= g to be computed and it's usage for different steering mechanisms over SR P= olicies. 4. Finally, specific to the proposed encoding here, would this "path MTU= " not be more suitable on the CP level since each SL may have different siz= e label stack and different paths and one does not know which SL would be p= icked for a particular flow? So may be the lowest value computed for all SL= s is what gets applied to the packets at the CP (i.e. SR Policy) level? Thanks, Ketan From: Idr On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: 30 March 2020 18:06 To: 'IDR List' Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Wee= k WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13) This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-0= 3.txt You can view this draft at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu/ This draft distributes path maximum transmission unit for the SR policy via BGP. Any discussion regarding on whether one desires SR Policy should be clearly distinguished from the Technical discussions on the mechanisms to pass SR policy MTU. The questions for the people to discuss on this draft are: 1) Is there a need for this mechanism in networks using MPLS-SR or SR-V6 and SR policy? 2) Are there any error handling issues besides what is being Taken care of in RFC7752bis-03.txt 3) Do you think this draft is ready to be adopted? In this category, please list any concerns you have regarding adoption. This category can include general concerns about BGP-LS, MPLS-SR, SR-V6, and SR-Policy. Cheers, Sue Hares --_000_MW3PR11MB45709BBDB2AD9FF81494A0CCC1C70MW3PR11MB4570namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

&nbs= p;

I have a = few questions for the authors of this draft and some discussion points for = the WG.

&nbs= p;

  1. What is precisely the defi= nition of this “path MTU” for an SR Policy? I am guessing that = it includes all the labels/SIDs that are used for the SR path?
  2. While https://= tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3209#section-2.6 defines “path MTU” = for RSVP-TE LSPs, it does describe the procedures for the same for handling= IP packets/payloads on the headend. It does not cover the scenarios where the incoming packets may be themselves labelled.=
  3. Sho= uldn’t the concept of “path MTU” for SR Policies and its&= #8217; applicability and operations be first defined in a (Spring WG?) docu= ment before we introduce its signalling aspects in protocols like BGP? Note that such a document would bring in requirements = and guidelines for how the value is going to be computed and it’s usa= ge for different steering mechanisms over SR Policies.
  4. Finally, specific to the= proposed encoding here, would this “path MTU” not be more suit= able on the CP level since each SL may have different size label stack and = different paths and one does not know which SL would be picked for a particular flow? So may b= e the lowest value computed for all SLs is what gets applied to the packets= at the CP (i.e. SR Policy) level?

&nbs= p;

Thanks,

Ketan

&nbs= p;

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 30 March 2020 18:06
To: 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt = - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)

 

This begins a 2 week WG adoptio= n call for draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt

 

You can view this draft at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org= /doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu/

 

This draft distributes path max= imum transmission unit for the

SR policy via BGP.  <= /o:p>

 

Any discussion regarding on whe= ther one desires

SR Policy should be clearly dis= tinguished from the

Technical discussions on the me= chanisms to pass SR policy MTU.

 

The questions for the people to= discuss on this draft are:

 

1) Is there a need for this mec= hanism in networks using

     &= nbsp;  MPLS-SR or SR-V6 and SR policy?

 

2) Are there any error handling= issues besides what is being

     T= aken care of in RFC7752bis-03.txt

 

3) Do you think this draft is r= eady to be adopted?

     I= n this category, please list any concerns you have

     regard= ing adoption.  This category can include

     g= eneral concerns about BGP-LS, MPLS-SR,

    SR-V6, = and SR-Policy.   

 

Cheers, Sue Hares  

 

 

 

 

 

--_000_MW3PR11MB45709BBDB2AD9FF81494A0CCC1C70MW3PR11MB4570namp_--