Re: [Idr] Review Updates to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Acee,

Changes look good to me!
Jeff

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 13:37 Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
> Thanks for the support. I’ve attached the changes I’m proposing – it is
> actually a pretty straight forward extraction.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 4:24 PM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>, IDR List <[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] Review Updates to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid
>
>
>
> strong +1 from having reviewed the draft in SG if it's really not
> implemented by anyone ... This will
>
> 1. simplify the draft significantly and improve its readability
>
> 2. remove bunch of weird corner cases I commented on that would need
> specification if v6 is in it
>
> Otherwise only serious comments pending was the clarity/correctness of the
> forwarding section (but I admit I did NOT read the newest version published
> so maybe they have been taken up) AFAIR ..
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Alvaro and IDR WG:
>
>
>
>      There is one more change we’d like to make to the draft that requires
> WG approval. One revelation during the review process for this draft is
> that the SRv6 use case as currently documented isn’t really that compelling
> and there are some details that are unspecified. Other than validation, the
> IPv6 SID TLV hasn’t been implemented. Consequently, we’d like to remove the
> IPv6 SID TLV and SRv6 dataplane specification from the draft. Are there any
> objections (other than the obvious one that it is very late to be making
> this change)?
>
>
>
> Here are a list of implementations and none have implemented the IPv6 SID:
>
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid%20implementations
>
>
>
> Note that the code point for the IPv6 SID would be deprecated since
> validation has been implemented in several implementations.
>
>
>
> If there are no objections, I could make this change next week and we
> could allow for an additional week for review.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 8:37 AM
> *To: *IDR List <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Review Updates to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid
> *Resent-From: *<[e-mail]>
> *Resent-To: *Stefano Previdi <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, Acee
> Lindem <[e-mail]>, Arjun Sreekantiah <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>
> *Resent-Date: *Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 8:37 AM
>
>
>
> Dear idr WG:
>
>
>
> This draft has been through the WG and IESG process and it is waiting
> final approval for publication.
>
>
>
> During the process some changes have been made, some of them significant
> enough that I want to call out for your attention.  Please take a look at
> the latest version, specifically the updated text related to multiple
> prefixes/paths in sections 4.1 and 4.2.  For your convenience, I think that
> the diff between -14 and -16 provides the clearest view:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-14&url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16
>
>
>
>
> I think the changes are fine and that they don’t require the document
> returning to the WG.  But I just want to give you the opportunity to look
> at them just in case.  If anyone has concerns, please reply to this
> message.  I plan on approving the document for publication by the end of
> next week (Feb/23).
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> On February 13, 2018 at 10:31:47 PM, [e-mail] (
> [e-mail]) wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for BGP
> Authors : Stefano Previdi
> Clarence Filsfils
> Acee Lindem
> Arjun Sreekantiah
> Hannes Gredler
> Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16.txt
> Pages : 19
> Date : 2018-02-13
>
> Abstract:
> The Segment Routing (SR) architecture allows a node to steer a packet
> flow through any topological path and service chain by leveraging
> source routing. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet
> containing a set of segment identifiers (SID). Each SID represents a
> topological or a service-based instruction. Per-flow state is
> maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain.
>
> This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for
> announcing BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP Prefix-SID)
> information.
>
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-16
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>