IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Sat, 20 April 2019 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.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 1403F1201EF for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8VFlGtXoGvLx for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD8891201EB for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7D6CE18A820825A5ABC0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:34:44 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:34:42 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:34:37 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call
Thread-Index: AdT18PKNf1StrQ3RRRaQiBRQFVL9LwAA0HEQAARK0wAAFRlfAAAvz19A
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 01:34:37 +0000
Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CCCA5B77@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <015501d4f5f2$7a72ed70$6f58c850$@ndzh.com> <SN6PR11MB2845DF1ABF12D8D8FA4586FCC1260@SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <9af53b3d-51e2-420a-8ea4-229e687c6dd8@Spark> <D7669A31-BBC0-4212-AA3A-8402C51B5806@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D7669A31-BBC0-4212-AA3A-8402C51B5806@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.151.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CCCA5B77NKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/K4Ltajf4ytVQOdEhkIadOougGsU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 01:34:50 -0000

Support and agree with Acee about the combination for future extensions.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 6:44 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

Support. In the future, we’re going to combine BGP-LS for simple extensions like this in the IGP drafts defining the extensions.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:40 PM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

support as co-author
+1 Ketan

Cheers,
Jeff
On Apr 18, 2019, 8:27 AM -0700, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com<mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>, wrote:
Support as co-author.


1.    Does adding the announcement of seamless S-BFD descriptors via BGP LS address family benefit network provisioning?
This is not really part of network provisioning as much as distribution of the SBFD discriminators that are flooded within IGP area/level to centralized controllers so that they can be leveraged for SBFD verification of paths across multi-domain/AS (under a single admin domain)


2.    Is it important to keep the same BGP-ls information in OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP regarding S-BFD discriminators?
I did not quite follow this question.


3.    Is this document mature enough for WG Adoption?
Yes. It is simple extension – like many others in BGP-LS for defining new TLV corresponding to IGP specs. The concerned IGP specs are now rfc7884 and rfc7883 – so definitely quite mature.


4.    Are there any issues that the WG should consider to help quicken the pace of the adoption?
SBFD is getting wider use due to it’s simplicity and lightweight procedures. This extension in BGP-LS enables controllers to learn SBFD discriminators for running verifications across domains. So faster adoption would help development of those use-cases.


5.    Do you know of planned implementations?  If so, should is this document mature enough to receive early allocation for the BGP-LS code points.
Yes. Early allocation would be requested.

Thanks,
Ketan


From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 18 April 2019 19:55
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt.  You can access the document at:

https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/>

During your comments, please consider the following:


1.    Does adding the announcement of seamless S-BFD descriptors via BGP LS address family benefit network provisioning?

2.    Is it important to keep the same BGP-ls information in OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP regarding S-BFD discriminators?

3.    Is this document mature enough for WG Adoption?

4.    Are there any issues that the WG should consider to help quicken the pace of the adoption?

5.    Do you know of planned implementations?  If so, should is this document mature enough to receive early allocation for the BGP-LS code points.

Remember that raising issues regarding document during WG adoption will help us speed this BGP-LS WG document toward WG LC.

Cheerily, Susan Hares
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status