Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-04 (3/10 to 3/24)

[Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]>]

Dear Sue, WG,

I support the adoption of draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities.

1)  Yes it will help.  At present, IFIT has been deployed, and the tail node relies on manual configuration to determine which IFIT capabilities to handle, which is tedious and error-prone. Draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities will facilitate the deployment of IFIT measurements on a per-service and on-demand basis dynamically.
The announcement of the BGP communities are controlled per-peer and hop-by-hop. When the tail node receives it, it will not be further announce.

2) Yes. We co-authors believe that suitable solutions are currently designed and hope to improve these solutions with the joint efforts of the working group.

3) Regarding the relation with draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit, I think that the two drafts can be considered independent and complementary, they are applied in different scenarios.
Draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities can be considered as a general distributed solution that does not require the participation of centralized control element, while draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit allows to distribute SR policies from a centralized control element and it can be considered as a centralized control solution.

4) Yes. We co-authors believe that it will help network operators deploying the IFIT technology.  We would also like to receive more comments from network operators, and improve the solution described in this draft.

Thanks,
Shunwan

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:39 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-04 (3/10 to 3/24)

Greeting:

This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call (3/10/2022 to 3/24/2022)
for draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities/

In your comments please consider if:

1) Do the additions to BGP (2 Communities and
TLV for next-hop-capability attribute)
help the distribute information regarding the  IFIT options
from tail (egress) nodes to head nodes (ingress)?

Are there any cases where these BGP
Communities should be removed or ignored?


2) Are the mechanisms (2 Communities and
attribute TLV) correctly specified?

3) How do these additions interaction with the
  With SR technology for IFIT described in
   draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit, and its
   use of RFC9012 (tunnel attributes)?

(Authors an example on how these
technologies work together or
 operate separately would be helpful).

4)  Will this addition help network operators
deploying IFIT technology?


Cheerily, Sue