Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt -(8/17/2022to 8/31/2022
"王雪伟1(研发部 北京)" <wangxuewei1@ruijie.com.cn> Fri, 26 August 2022 12:42 UTC
Return-Path: <wangxuewei1@ruijie.com.cn>
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 D8842C14F740 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 05:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RUYluc7KhT-l for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 05:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cxsh.intel-email.com (cxsh.intel-email.com [121.46.250.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 677DCC14F724 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 05:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cxsh.intel-email.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D74EDDA78A; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:42:36 +0800 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at intel-email.com
Received: from cxsh.intel-email.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cxsh.intel-email.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F939DDA787; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:42:35 +0800 (CST)
Authentication-Results: cxsh.intel-email.com; none
Received: from BJEX3.ruijie.com.cn (mxbj.ruijie.com.cn [114.251.56.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by cxsh.intel-email.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F978DDA785; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:42:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from BJEX4.ruijie.com.cn ([fe80::9884:380d:1e38:aa00]) by BJEX3.ruijie.com.cn ([fe80::d89a:2d84:4ea6:e7d8%22]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:42:32 +0800
From: "王雪伟1(研发部 北京)" <wangxuewei1@ruijie.com.cn>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re:[Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt -(8/17/2022to 8/31/2022
Thread-Index: Adi5STP9FYyQwX3jTtS8rKZJhea+lw==
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 12:42:32 +0000
Message-ID: <656C56C04D494B4BA86A6E60E79854480A1CAD6D@BJEX4.ruijie.com.cn>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.17.125.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_656C56C04D494B4BA86A6E60E79854480A1CAD6DBJEX4ruijiecomc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P31lav93ycIvepOdlYTKPMRNYTc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt -(8/17/2022to 8/31/2022
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 12:42:42 -0000
Hi Susan and WG, I support the WG adoption of this draft. 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt [xuewei] this bit is reasonable, which is useful for some scenario. I agree the extending. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect [xuewei] this use is a very useful addition use case, so i also agree. 3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks? [xuewei] this solution provide a deployment method, which is helpful for SRv6 deployment. And as an vendor, we have implemented this feature in our router. Best Regards, xuewei From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:59 PM To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org> Subject: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022 This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/ During your discussion of this draft, please consider: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt Figure 1 : Local Administrator 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved |C| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ C = 0 - redirect original flow C = 1 - redirect copy of original flow This bit augments the Redirect to IP action in RFC8955 And RFC8956. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/ See the following thread for a discussion of this in March: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HENTMEoiMJGmcMuVz7LTYclCSdw/ 3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks? We'll discuss this draft at the IDR interim on 8/29/2022. Cheerily, Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy… 王雪伟1(研发部 北京)