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

["Tao He(联通集团中国联通研究院-本部)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

I support the WG adoption of the draft.


·¢¼þÈË: Idr <[e-mail]> ´ú±í Susan Hares
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2020Äê11ÔÂ2ÈÕ 13:04
ÊÕ¼þÈË: [e-mail]
Ö÷Ìâ: [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 ¨C 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?







Èç¹ûÄú´íÎó½ÓÊÕÁ˸ÃÓʼþ£¬Çëͨ¹ýµç×ÓÓʼþÁ¢¼´Í¨ÖªÎÒÃÇ¡£Çë»Ø¸´Óʼþµ½ [e-mail]£¬¼´¿ÉÒÔÍ˶©´ËÓʼþ¡£ÎÒÃǽ«Á¢¼´½«ÄúµÄÐÅÏ¢´ÓÎÒÃǵķ¢ËÍĿ¼ÖÐɾ³ý¡£ If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately by e-mail. Please reply to [e-mail] ,you can unsubscribe from this mail. We will immediately remove your information from send catalogue of our.