Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt

Hi Sue,

draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt will expire on September 24, 2022.
Should we update it to the version 08 now, or should we wait until the call adoption results are announced and then update the draft?

Best Regards,
Shunwan
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:09 AM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022

This Adoption call for draft-jian-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt is closed.
The IDR chairs will announced the results on 9/10/2022.

Cheerily, Sue

From: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com<mailto:zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 9:06 AM
To: Nat Kao <pyxislx@gmail.com<mailto:pyxislx@gmail.com>>; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Cc: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022

Hi Nat,

Thanks for your support and suggestion!

Regarding the suggestion of “the same mechanism can also be applied to policies with SR-MPLS SID-lists.”, the corresponding use cases will certainly be added in future version.

Best Regards,
Shunwan

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nat Kao
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 4:30 PM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Cc: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022

Hi, Susan & WG.

As an operator, I support WG adoption of this draft.
This approach is very useful for on-demand traffic steering with specific/dynamic traffic patterns.

My answers are inline:

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:59 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:
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.

Yes.

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/

Yes, this approach provides a unified way for steering traffic into SR-policies using either SR-MPLS or SRv6 SID-lists.

Note: As discussed before, the same mechanism can also be applied to policies with SR-MPLS SID-lists.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/q0If1M-UgoeeM16HR-TXCSWRTAQ/

3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks?

Yes.

We’ll discuss this draft at the IDR interim on 8/29/2022.

Cheerily, Susan Hares

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

Regards,
Nat