[Idr] Re: draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-09.txt
linchangwang <linchangwang.04414@h3c.com> Fri, 07 November 2025 18:44 UTC
Return-Path: <linchangwang.04414@h3c.com>
X-Original-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA5585981C0 for <idr@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2025 10:44:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.803
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pXXyQf_ZTTHq for <idr@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2025 10:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com (smtp.h3c.com [60.191.123.50]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB8E285981B9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2025 10:44:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com ([172.25.15.154]) by h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com with ESMTP id 5A7IiZlM069539; Sat, 8 Nov 2025 02:44:35 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from linchangwang.04414@h3c.com)
Received: from DAG6EX08-BJD.srv.huawei-3com.com (unknown [10.153.34.10]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2524320045AA; Sat, 8 Nov 2025 02:52:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from DAG6EX08-BJD.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.153.34.10) by DAG6EX08-BJD.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.153.34.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.27; Sat, 8 Nov 2025 02:44:26 +0800
Received: from DAG6EX08-BJD.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::5d6c:b52b:478f:2738]) by DAG6EX08-BJD.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::5d6c:b52b:478f:2738%17]) with mapi id 15.02.1258.027; Sat, 8 Nov 2025 02:44:26 +0800
From: linchangwang <linchangwang.04414@h3c.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-09.txt
Thread-Index: AdxQFnYZhnfRcNLeS3OH88vxQL5oxQ==
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2025 18:44:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4ebd1e983b6c44dea6c744fb220cb6fa@h3c.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.142.193.222]
x-sender-location: DAG2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4ebd1e983b6c44dea6c744fb220cb6fah3ccom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-DNSRBL:
X-SPAM-SOURCE-CHECK: pass
X-MAIL: h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com 5A7IiZlM069539
Message-ID-Hash: ABODWRSQMQYAMY4ZXWDJ4FPNHBYEOEFH
X-Message-ID-Hash: ABODWRSQMQYAMY4ZXWDJ4FPNHBYEOEFH
X-MailFrom: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-09.txt
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/I7HcMCHIBOZ-9JsXDrYwBPwpr8k>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Sue, Thank you for the detailed explanation of the issue. Please refer to my previous email reply for details: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/hzmhbnprVBh0KcbRsMBOAX-p1P0/. Currently, 'Color' is defined as a field in the Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV. The 'color' in the SR Policy attribute is unrelated to the Color Extended Community attribute or Color TLV. The newly defined 'color' field in draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-09 is introduced under the Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV within the SR Policy attribute. Alternatively, we could rename it to 'Constituent SR Policy Color' to avoid confusion with these existing color-related terms? Thanks a lot! Thanks, Changwang 发件人: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> 发送时间: 2025年11月8日 1:59 收件人: idr <idr@ietf.org> 主题: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-09.txt The question at the microphone related to the discussion on draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path. The draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path does not specify how the Color precedence works between the setting of color in the BGP Update by three things: 1) Color extended community attribute 2) Color TLV 3) Segment list’s Constituent SR Policy TLV – Color Sub-TLV If I were an operator, I would like to BGP-LS a) What color set by policy on the composite candidate path, b) Where this color came from (Color Ext. Community, Color TLV in Tunnel Attribute, Segment List’s Constituent SR Policy TLV). Does your draft assume BGP and/or the SRPM saves this information? If so, how does it query for this information? Cheerily, Sue Relevant text sections for reference: draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path text that applies: SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint> Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23) Tunnel Type: SR Policy Binding SID SRv6 Binding SID Preference Priority Policy Name Policy Candidate Path Name Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) Segment List Weight Segment Segment ... Constituent SR Policy Color Weight Fowarding Class ... The Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Color | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Weight | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLVs | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV format draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-09.txt The Composite Candidate Path TLV is used to report the constituent SR policy(s) of a composite candidate path. It is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP- LS Attribute defined in [RFC9552] and is associated with the SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI type. Only a single instance of this TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) one is used and the rest are ignored. The TLV has following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Color | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Weight | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-TLVs (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出 的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、 或散发)本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本 邮件! This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
- [Idr] Re: draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-… linchangwang
- [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path… Susan Hares
- [Idr] Re: draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-… linchangwang
- [Idr] Re: draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-… Susan Hares