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

"Stephane Litkowski (slitkows)" <slitkows@cisco.com> Wed, 04 November 2020 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <slitkows@cisco.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 9F1A73A12C6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:47:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=I+Rf1ORI; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=cxqkzLew
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 0-VoMy2WCWP9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:47:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A4E3A12B9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:47:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21720; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1604501272; x=1605710872; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=wfrVksEzR+K6ra8SfoIADyOvRM0Y+1Qxtay96WpLEuY=; b=I+Rf1ORIM7TpUMPu6sRQ5gqB5mZUa2Y1XUhM120lcENPuO7k/Vdi/fqm TJ5twm5ugfnUmttW5yh6IkAYR7xeezwyL+hxpCNr3w8rIcSXcHiKhNr4T w7qbXHCY2g6goxjxinKzBWtwR8H+tn+8689GOVI29hTmbblwCJW22fSJN U=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A1WGDvBAyK7urd3nlmu2YUyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9p?= =?us-ascii?q?ssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qw00g3JQIzE5vMCgO3T4OjsWm0FtJCGtn1KMJlBTA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMhshemQs8SNWEBkv2IL+PDWQ6Ec1OWUUj8yS9Nk5YS8bjbkLfozu56jtBUh?= =?us-ascii?q?n6PBB+c+LyHIOahs+r1ue0rpvUZQgAhDe0bb5oahusqgCEvcgNiowkIaE0mR?= =?us-ascii?q?Y=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CFBwDfvaJf/49dJa1igQmBT4EjLyM?= =?us-ascii?q?uB3BZLy4Kh3wDjU+BBJd7gS6BJQNUCwEBAQ0BASMKAgQBAYRKAoIMAiU1CA4?= =?us-ascii?q?CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRxhWEMhXIBAQEEEgsQEwEBKQ8PAgEIEQQBASEHBzI?= =?us-ascii?q?UCQgCBAESCBqDBYF+TQMuAQ6kRwKBO4hodIE0gwQBAQWBR0GCfRiCEAMGgTi?= =?us-ascii?q?CcopIG4FBP4EQAUOCGjU+gQSBWQIDAYFdJAcJgxSCLJp+jAyRGwqCbYkKkiG?= =?us-ascii?q?CBoESihKUQ4dZi3SKeJVMAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFWAjYqgS1wFYMkUBcCDY5Wgzq?= =?us-ascii?q?FFIVEdDgCBgoBAQMJfIsILYEGAYEQAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,451,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217";a="595248001"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 Nov 2020 14:47:51 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0A4ElpqA019445 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:47:51 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:47:51 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:47:50 -0600
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:47:50 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=NdRF/E0nK2gY7+0x8MeqTFveWvHHEbbOSx8hSQoYNx/Qof7SHVRy5a3otg/R4GWRCOSWct2T3EtpjhZvLIcxcjp8XqoVMzbakh5GQdkRN7/ev+uAoX775fBLvI5PIjvrZtXIvG33T+0W7AfDwMaP/AEnyDCCv6zyFiluilDym6JUkKUdn8Qr6EI0lH2l5tPe9yZMSsDllfEVGTIBbTNUCp2N9Xb6saWDBH5Nfxk6Zu11BaBSpsOK+S5bFrELf8mfXUi9Q1P4RPPhEMboMM44aAjzMdOIyHuM7zag68wr0FwQ4g3rOJSTQYRCMejRRgol+v1E/bxxqJ56BIt/UjYuvw==
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=rdOhParzy+3y6D8U6pcySE+lpo44gkCVlBX9ZF53p+M=; b=ElZpaYbG0c6fI3tgMbQ0ACWyNKY3f0PdXzWKH80dOhMOx6e8qK+NivgFXyYLC2Q49OskFyDQcCBX76eiQA/IURLDaUevYziOjWHuEGrmNNg6z7h5YCAIsD7hTMvAo/q5ie6yfgj03+XSRDaLUCOeL4iTqiZW+W7NdDIumh7I833+UYV4m57oIoJ6BEEdABvdDa9Mfvam6HrWVsSduvhYgeOAbEaJlbLr3qdwtzUzOi/Y+MDPUXiVpxDh3DEzrsTNGz37p9GfaeimooI4WTuLEwFbcKgKy3v9wl3EV5S2imine8bigyDiymEYV1vo+b/cx47PB5AXwd5z3poxoPoG5Q==
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=rdOhParzy+3y6D8U6pcySE+lpo44gkCVlBX9ZF53p+M=; b=cxqkzLewH9DOJiQ3ob3SL2SAvMVU+izPeEf5zqR0iaT5AvnOry9VVE8NO8q3/NyXtHUevqU2Ni35BMBrgwJfTpdVhNcIbJ1i8fliKzS0rQviG0/WwT+/tDGOay62ipZkYCyOuS1wilhpA44A9ZUFuQiazGX7nnq0Vm1FH0UNSWw=
Received: from SJ0PR11MB5136.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:2d1::18) by BYAPR11MB2630.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:c2::28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3499.29; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:47:48 +0000
Received: from SJ0PR11MB5136.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6429:391a:1093:1bed]) by SJ0PR11MB5136.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6429:391a:1093:1bed%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3499.032; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:47:48 +0000
From: "Stephane Litkowski (slitkows)" <slitkows@cisco.com>
To: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
Thread-Index: AQHWsoDt6Lr8VUABQe2O6Y7iaRDQV6m4BtqAgAAGq7A=
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:47:48 +0000
Message-ID: <SJ0PR11MB5136FFF2E2AC4A7307D249DFC2EF0@SJ0PR11MB5136.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <050501d6b0d5$877d5970$96780c50$@ndzh.com> <SJ0PR11MB5136C14AD3AED30EF5EC128BC2EF0@SJ0PR11MB5136.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE1954049D@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE1954049D@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;huawei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.43]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 58c13722-1e61-41a1-ddd8-08d880d09961
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2630:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB2630CB3FA67AFD04DE65B491C2EF0@BYAPR11MB2630.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: mBttWhZURS4/S5uGEZGRH/fyI7Tt32nqwJqWQdnUpsW38pYR8qn4L0uFfjP6cACoS8UDBv2oP4vF3MR46gKWF3z1MCUiZjCa3saSbWB353gKX3PYx6AtTHWGhESCFXSWqKBI3MUdKLSX20hXNUCEn8MwJkb9OUG68V3wcyVXwIpP/BCS6DNYGLPzQBotiCdqMdkHkXyotbRmcMZO1C/5pEybPpVq8XpwGqR45DrxpvdGPsZwWAsiePyHiexv4EUoclmis4Yo+6GHrhy+Qr0KodVTbUrag7EacEPDeXfRWfGEt7vWPjP9cUprATd2ntnJhAtfomC+Fl97sdxGOnd86DO9F1vbSknj3fzDpM4IW/wnO7WcBheo6T/41o8r4OXAY9/g1lE4yS0pFuRwl8p/6w==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:SJ0PR11MB5136.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(376002)(8936002)(33656002)(110136005)(8676002)(83380400001)(5660300002)(316002)(71200400001)(66556008)(186003)(66946007)(9686003)(2906002)(166002)(478600001)(966005)(53546011)(66446008)(64756008)(52536014)(76116006)(26005)(7696005)(66476007)(6506007)(55016002)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_SJ0PR11MB5136FFF2E2AC4A7307D249DFC2EF0SJ0PR11MB5136namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SJ0PR11MB5136.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 58c13722-1e61-41a1-ddd8-08d880d09961
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Nov 2020 14:47:48.6232 (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: xDlgj+zapApmZd0Up34Mej3BBwGFFzLpiDeKCjs/quRbW5vYNVtYQ0lKfcFA9R3bLNU3vtqFRq4y1L0B129POA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2630
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HvyvJ_YOsfYAZIiDV-ne0g4HbBk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (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: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 14:47:56 -0000

Well, why not doing everything in LSR and address all IGPs (OSPF only in this case) + BGP-LS ? so we ensure that there is no gap.



From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com>
Sent: mercredi 4 novembre 2020 15:23
To: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <slitkows@cisco.com>om>; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Hi Stephane,

It has been included in this draft that "[RFC7176] specifies the ISIS mechanism and extensions for link MTU Sub-TLV" which can feed BGP-LS. This was actually suggested by the LSR WG.

Regarding OSPF, people can post corresponding draft to LSR if there is a need. There could be other ways too as you mentioned.

Best regards,
Shuping

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Litkowski (slitkows)
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:03 PM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Hi,

"a) Are there ways to pass IGP link MTUs in
the IGPs?  If so, is this needed in BGP-LS"

This is a valid point, most of the time BGP-LS is feeded by IGP LSDBs (of course there are other ways too). While I see that IS-IS has some MTU subTLV coming from TRILL RFC7176 (possibly never been implemented), I don't see anything for OSPF (I'm not an OSPF expert, so I may have missed it).
Shouldn't this be checked and validated with LSR WG before adopting ?


Stephane


From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: lundi 2 novembre 2020 06:04
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu/

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

Background
===========
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
MTU.

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?