Re: [Idr] Review Updates to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony,
Thanks for the support. I’ve attached the changes I’m proposing – it is actually a pretty straight forward extraction.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 4:24 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>, IDR List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review Updates to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid

strong +1 from having reviewed the draft in SG if it's really not implemented by anyone ... This will
1. simplify the draft significantly and improve its readability
2. remove bunch of weird corner cases I commented on that would need specification if v6 is in it
Otherwise only serious comments pending was the clarity/correctness of the forwarding section (but I admit I did NOT read the newest version published so maybe they have been taken up) AFAIR ..

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear Alvaro and IDR WG:

     There is one more change we’d like to make to the draft that requires WG approval. One revelation during the review process for this draft is that the SRv6 use case as currently documented isn’t really that compelling and there are some details that are unspecified. Other than validation, the IPv6 SID TLV hasn’t been implemented. Consequently, we’d like to remove the IPv6 SID TLV and SRv6 dataplane specification from the draft. Are there any objections (other than the obvious one that it is very late to be making this change)?

Here are a list of implementations and none have implemented the IPv6 SID:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid%20implementations

Note that the code point for the IPv6 SID would be deprecated since validation has been implemented in several implementations.

If there are no objections, I could make this change next week and we could allow for an additional week for review.

Thanks,
Acee




From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 8:37 AM
To: IDR List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Review Updates to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid
Resent-From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent-To: Stefano Previdi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Arjun Sreekantiah <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 8:37 AM

Dear idr WG:

This draft has been through the WG and IESG process and it is waiting final approval for publication.

During the process some changes have been made, some of them significant enough that I want to call out for your attention.  Please take a look at the latest version, specifically the updated text related to multiple prefixes/paths in sections 4.1 and 4.2.  For your convenience, I think that the diff between -14 and -16 provides the clearest view:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-14&url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16

I think the changes are fine and that they don’t require the document returning to the WG.  But I just want to give you the opportunity to look at them just in case.  If anyone has concerns, please reply to this message.  I plan on approving the document for publication by the end of next week (Feb/23).

Thanks!

Alvaro.


On February 13, 2018 at 10:31:47 PM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.

Title : Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for BGP
Authors : Stefano Previdi
Clarence Filsfils
Acee Lindem
Arjun Sreekantiah
Hannes Gredler
Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16.txt
Pages : 19
Date : 2018-02-13

Abstract:
The Segment Routing (SR) architecture allows a node to steer a packet
flow through any topological path and service chain by leveraging
source routing. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet
containing a set of segment identifiers (SID). Each SID represents a
topological or a service-based instruction. Per-flow state is
maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain.

This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for
announcing BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP Prefix-SID)
information.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr