[Idr] Questions about BGP Color-Aware Routing

Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> Wed, 28 July 2021 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaj3@chinatelecom.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 766513A2516 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 02:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 oOgfKN33eI7t for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 02:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B243A2510 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 02:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.48:33662.224818187
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-219.142.69.75 (unknown [172.18.0.48]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 388C52800B1; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:31:45 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 66040164@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.48]) by app0024 with ESMTP id 73b296eea0c64881947fa5f1e0ddb05a for dhrao@cisco.com; Wed Jul 28 17:31:44 2021
X-Transaction-ID: 73b296eea0c64881947fa5f1e0ddb05a
X-filter-score:
X-Real-From: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.48
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
To: <dhrao@cisco.com>
Cc: <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:31:42 +0800
Message-ID: <018501d78393$610a11c0$231e3540$@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0186_01D783D6.6F2F4D90"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdeDktCuX5M5kPBTTxG1Hj4JErMWiA==
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QyCF66Dsub2TE5aZ_vYmWrfqqtI>
Subject: [Idr] Questions about BGP Color-Aware Routing
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:31:54 -0000

Hi, Dhananjaya:

 

What I want to ask during the meeting are the followings:

1)     What's the reason to define the new NLRI to carry (Prefix, Color)
information together? 

2)     Can the same aim be accomplished with the normal Prefix NLRI and
color extend community?

3)     What's the advantage of your solution, when we compared it with other
solutions to achieve the end-to-end differentiate path across a
multi-domain?

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom