[Idr] Re: draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Adrian:

Thank you for the excellent response to my questions.  Your suggestion on a better way to define NRP-ID is very helpful.

Cheerily, Sue

From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:49 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)

Hi Sue, Thanks for asking. To your specific questions: Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information valuable to networks? With my TEAS network slicing head on, yes, this is a useful
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2IyOGRkOGViZTczYzY5ZTUyMjRiNGJiMjJhNTAxMWRlLzE3MjE3MDI5NTIuNzQ=#key=013a6db38770080ba9612a448626e79e>  FAQ<https://www.godaddy.com/help/report-email-with-advanced-email-security-40813>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Hi Sue,

Thanks for asking.

To your specific questions:

  1.  Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information valuable to networks?
With my TEAS network slicing head on, yes, this is a useful thing to have so that the steering actions at the network edge can be reported for more clear understanding of how the slicing services (traffic flows) are being reported.


  1.  Does the draft clearly specify the TLV?
With one of my other heads on (DE for BGP-LS), this looks good to me.
Maybe the definition of what goes in the NRP ID field could be a little clearer. Section 2 has "NRP ID is planned by network operator." Maybe something like: "The NRP ID is defined by the network operator and has meaning in the network operator's context. Refer to [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp] for more information about how this value may be set and interpreted."


  1.  Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID?
I like the specific issue that is called out in Section 6. I don't see any other concerns.


  1.  Is this document ready to adopt?
I did a thorough review of this draft at -08. The authors have addressed my comments in -09, so I am content for this version to move forward.

Cheers,
Adrian


From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 23 July 2024 02:42
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)

This begins a 2+ week WG adoption call (7/22 to 8/9/2024)for
draft-chen-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09.txt.
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxVzEsSwiAQRdGtWIwFQpuYz8itAN0mqUSgGjJQy70rQ6fv1jtvcfAuppNYSkl50hptsYWt34jVSuWuIs8ao9fI9l6kXyjIFVm6Ock9y8wyxX31Txk4aXE-ia1qgcrvZ5puuI4GdF4sU74FfC3Kx4d2MCAO5Ki_-OtIHUDrWucAbNcYg6RND6ZvYOxA9W1VqaoWebXhFnfEOP8gdWy1YW1_4-cLsTFDZA.MEUCID_SJnk7r6jPdeSjbBkyrfNz3lYCqxhoSDIPCxCUrM8OAiEAv9QANSPn1VF-aMgOAl7Si8vJifQ389Qz_6M5aeqF7uE>)

The authors should respond to this WG adoption call with an email with the IPR statement.

Document focus:
This document defines a new TLV in BGP-LS to report the NRP-ID
associated with an SR Candidate Policy Path (CP).

Links to Spring: During the 5/20/2024 interim, the following question was raised:
What is the relationship between the information in this draft and the information in draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments?

Ran answered the following:
Due to the resource SID mechanism defined in the draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxVjEEOgjAQRa9iurYtHUHAlVeZdkYgaGumJSYa7y5dun3v__dRm9zV5aDmUp75Yi1hwSIYVhazcLmZJJOlFCwJ3oquSOenLHHSwjltEljjC4V15unBsWSrjge11mbksr9d0w3n0YHN8z7L10jv2YT0sB4GooE996dwHrkDaH3rPQB2jXPE1vXg-gbGDkzf1irXKpIsGK_pTpSmPWS2tTqq7g9-fw_nRmk.MEYCIQDzFMJ61V0TiPvzYIRrR3YVH-v8_NCVANym_NpzjhyRwQIhAJSMkZ8sOnqvqkVsFzAPI1n5u26fYiQ1h-etN3o74AZy>)

the headend node does not have information about the relationship between
Candidate Path (CP) and NRP IDs, so it currently does not consider reporting the
relationship between CP and NRP ID. The current draft is only for the scenario
where data packets carry NRP ID.  The NRP ID is used with the normal SR SID as
the resource used will be indicated by the NRP-ID.  An SR Policy candidate path(CP)
may be instantiated with a specific NRP on the headend node via a local configuration,
PCEP, or BGP SR Policy signaling. Then the state and attributes of the NRP associated
with the candidate path of SR policy can be distributed to the controller.

In your discussion, please consider:


  1.  Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information valuable to networks?
  2.  Does the draft clearly specify the TLV?
  3.  Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID?
  4.  Is this document ready to adopt?

Cheerily, Sue