IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022

"luyy@unitechs.com" <luyy@unitechs.com> Wed, 31 August 2022 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <luyy@unitechs.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 4FDDFC14F72D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 21:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, 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 UAliOEdw5S2L for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 21:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out29-219.mail.aliyun.com (out29-219.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.29.219]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9BFEC14F719 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 21:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE; BC=0.1407018|-1; BR=01201311R151S08rulernew998_84748_2000303; CH=blue; DM=|CONTINUE|false|; DS=CONTINUE|ham_regular_dialog|0.0771862-0.00856661-0.914247; FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=ay29a033018047192; MF=luyy@unitechs.com; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=2; RT=2; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---.P43eDGs_1661921270;
Received: from DESKTOP-BIN9HAI(mailfrom:luyy@unitechs.com fp:SMTPD_---.P43eDGs_1661921270) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:47:51 +0800
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:47:50 +0800
From: "luyy@unitechs.com" <luyy@unitechs.com>
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <BYAPR08MB487272B6440945C76FACC0D8B36A9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>, <00b701d8bc1c$b3f873a0$1be95ae0$@com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 401C6048-369F-43F2-9F35-B19CA54398E2
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.23.121[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2022083112474991367715@unitechs.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart170302801215_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TYF7q1CdA_3xghmx00IlyUCGDcI>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 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: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 04:48:03 -0000

Hi Susan and WG,

I support the adoption of this draft. 1） Yes. 2） Yes. Using indirection id to steer SRv6 traffcic is limited under certain scenarios, and this draft could be a better solution for such problems.
3） Yes. This feature extends the flexibility of SRv6 network deployment.

Best regards,Yunyang Lu

发件人: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2022年8月17日 22:59
收件人: idr@ietf.org
主题: [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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email