Re: [Idr] //FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-02.txt

[Nat Kao <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Wenying.

Thanks for the updates, I believe all comments are addressed.
Details below:

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 4:18 PM 姜文颖 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Nat
>
>      Thank you very much for your comments.
>
>      Please check my comments inline below with [Wenying].
>
>
> Many Thanks,
>
> Wenying
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Nat Kao [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:46 PM
> To: Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Nat Kao (PyxisLX) <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022
>
>
>
> Hi, Shunwan.
>
>
>
> First of all, thank you so much for including the SR-MPLS use case.
>
> After carefully reading, I have a few suggestions:
> 1. It would be pretty useful if we also covered "Flow-spec Redirect to IPv6" descriptions in Chapter 4.
>     In RFC9256, there were no limitations on the AFI/SAFI of the endpoints.
>     We could steer traffic into SR-Policies constructed with SR-MPLS SID Lists with either IPv4 or IPv6 endpoints.
>     So we could have a unified steering framework for both IPv4/IPv6 endpoints and SR-MPLS/SRv6 SID Lists.
>     It also added flexibility in dual-stacked SR-MPLS networks.
>
> [Wenying] Agree with you.

[NK] Thanks!

>
>  2. It would be worth mentioning the case regarding multiple Color Extended communities.
>     We could refer this behavior to Section 8.4.1 of RFC9256:
>     "When a BGP route has multiple Color Extended communities each with a valid SR Policy, the BGP process installs the route on the SR Policy giving preference to the Color Extended community with the highest numerical value."
>
> [Wenying] Agreed. We have added the above text to page 5 of the draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/02/.

[NK] Got it! My apologies for missing this.

>
>  3. [Optional] A pretty minor one: It would be better to unify the terms "SR List" and "SID List"
>     We could align the terms with RFC9256(SID List).
>
> [Wenying] Agreed, We will use the uniform term "SID List" in the draft.

[NK] Thanks!

>
>
> The following might be out of the scope of this draft, but worth mentioning:
> 1. [Optional] Should we consider Flow-spec routes with multiple "Redirect to IPv4/IPv6" extended communities?
>     If yes, what kind of behavior should be defined?
>     For example, we might want to:
>         -Load balance traffic into multiple SR-Policies with different endpoints
>          OR
>         -Ignore the Color Extended community in this case(resulting the same behavior defined in "draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip")
>
> 2. [Optional] Should we consider the case defined in "draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip" with mixed "Redirect to VRF" and "Redirect to IPv4/IPv6" actions?
>
>     If yes, I would suggest that we should ignore Color Extended communities in this case since most implementations had only one shared SR-Policy table.
>     It might not be reasonable to have SR-Policies in different tables/VRFs currently.
>
>
>
> [Wenying] Agree with you that the above is beyond the scope of this draft. Perhaps we can discuss together afterwards to see if there is an opportunity to submit new drafts.

[NK] Agreed. It can be addressed in other documents.

Many Thanks,
Nat
[NK]

>
>
>
> Many Thanks.
>
> Nat
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:07PM Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
> Hi Nat and All,
>
>
>
> As promised, we have added SR-MPLS use case in draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy.
>
>
>
> Special thanks to Nat Kao for suggesting adding SR-MPLS use cases to this document.
>
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/
>
>
>
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-02
>
>
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-02
>
>
>
> Any comments and suggestions are welcome!
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Shunwan
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Idr  [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Nat Kao
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 4:30 PM
> To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022
>
>
>
> Hi, Susan & WG.
>
>
>
> As an operator, I support WG adoption of this draft.
>
> This approach is very useful for on-demand traffic steering with specific/dynamic traffic patterns.
>
>
>
> My answers are inline:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:59 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/
>
>
>
> During your discussion of this draft, please consider:
>
>
>
> 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the
>
> action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found
>
> draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt
>
>
>
> Figure 1 : Local Administrator
>
>
>
> 0                   1
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> |          Reserved           |C|
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
>
> C = 0 – redirect original flow
>
> C = 1 – redirect copy of original flow
>
>
>
> This bit augments the Redirect to IP action in RFC8955
>
> And RFC8956.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature
>
> in addition to  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/
>
>
>
> See the following thread for a discussion of this in March:
>
>  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HENTMEoiMJGmcMuVz7LTYclCSdw/
>
>
>
> Yes, this approach provides a unified way for steering traffic into SR-policies using either SR-MPLS or SRv6 SID-lists.
>
>
>
> Note: As discussed before, the same mechanism can also be applied to policies with SR-MPLS SID-lists.
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/q0If1M-UgoeeM16HR-TXCSWRTAQ/
>
>
>
>
>
> 3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks?
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
>
> We’ll discuss this draft at the IDR interim on 8/29/2022.
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Susan Hares
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>