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

[Takuya Miyasaka <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I support the adoption of this draft.

I have read the draft and, as an operator, think this is an useful and 
(maybe) essential BGP-LS extension for a controller to build SR-TE path.

Thanks,
Takuya

On 2020/11/02 14:03, Susan Hares wrote:
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
>
> draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu-04.txt (11/1 – 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/ 
> <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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr