IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] 答复: draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)

Wenhuizhi <wenhuizhi@huawei.com> Sat, 26 October 2019 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <wenhuizhi@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 8241B12006E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 01:20:31 -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 WBxTk1iF3Ctd for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 01:20:29 -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 25D8C12004C for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 01:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7D8F9FAF7F78D73E4A4C for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 09:20:26 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 09:20:26 +0100
Received: from lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) by lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 09:20:26 +0100
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 09:20:25 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.96]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 16:20:16 +0800
From: Wenhuizhi <wenhuizhi@huawei.com>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)
Thread-Index: AdWCvtFpBLL09mJXRVKaSdG0p0gs7gJB5+XwAAPcZMA=
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 08:20:15 +0000
Message-ID: <E236C200C630B6438A92F433DECFB8EE9D9C823C@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <015d01d582c4$388e04d0$a9aa0e70$@ndzh.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CD2DA691@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CD2DA691@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.149.210]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E236C200C630B6438A92F433DECFB8EE9D9C823Cnkgeml513mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NsIL2kRiEkGD_8dmqC52fk7mSFY>
Subject: [Idr] 答复: draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)
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, 26 Oct 2019 08:20:32 -0000

Hi,

I think this draft provides a very good way to distribute routing policies. In particular, when routing policy is already exist in the live network configuration, the traditional method is very easy to bring wrong and unnecessary impacts, the approach in this draft could well avoid this situation. Thus I support the adoption of this document.

Best Wishes

Wen

发件人: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Dongjie (Jimmy)
发送时间: 2019年10月26日 14:40
收件人: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)

Hi,

I’ve read the latest version of this draft and think it is a good starting point for the distribution of routing policies using BGP. Thus I support the adoption of this document.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:19 AM
To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt
(10/14 to 10/28/2019).  You can access the draft at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd/

In your discussion regarding this draft consider if:


1)      Passing extended policy in BGP  is useful,

2)      Passing policy in wide community atom is a technical sound mechanism,

3)      A deployment need exists for this technology.


Susan Hares
Co-chair and shepherd

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email