[Idr] 答复: 答复: WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-02.txt (10/4/2018 to 10/18/2018)

"Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Tue, 09 October 2018 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CD61310F4; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LLcuT3jQNUem; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m88102.mail.qiye.163.com (m88102.mail.qiye.163.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D571310DC; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WangajPC (unknown []) by m88102.mail.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id B34BF4240A; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:04:06 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Dongjie \(Jimmy\)'" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "'Susan Hares'" <shares@ndzh.com>, <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: <draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext@ietf.org>
References: <009b01d45c1e$9d9d4110$d8d7c330$@ndzh.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927A7A03369@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927A7A03369@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:04:06 +0800
Message-ID: <006c01d45f74$5c402620$14c07260$@org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006D_01D45FB7.6A636620"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdRcHk64oDwWdL5oS7q3owhEVwCYaAC8O2dQABcpOdA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a6656912d4f9865kuuub34bf4240a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U5pfC319o4V_2j86H6YgDwwTgq0>
Subject: [Idr] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogILTwuLQ6ICBXRyBBZG9wdGlvbiBjYWxsIGZv?= =?gb2312?b?ciBkcmFmdC13YW5nLWlkci1iZ3Bscy1pbnRlci1hcy10b3BvbG9neS1leHQt?= =?gb2312?b?MDIudHh0ICgxMC80LzIwMTggdG8gMTAvMTgvMjAxOCk=?=
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: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 02:04:20 -0000

Hi, Jie:


Thanks for your supports and comments.

Let’s explain to you for our considerations for your concern points.

1)       For Non-TE scenario, the redistributed link information will be
carried in “prefix descriptor”, as described in
ction-3.1, then no link related TLV will be carried.

2)  For TE scenario, the inter-as link TLV should be treated different from
the ordinary link TLV, as stated in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5392#section-3.2.1  “Given that OSPF is an
IGP and should only be utilized between routers in the same routing domain,
the OSPF specific Link ID and Neighbor ID sub-TLVs are not applicable to
inter-AS links. “, this is the same reason that we define the new TLV
within BGP-LS.
The format of these TLVs can be aligned, but the type ID should be
different. For BGP-LS protocol, they should be newly assigned.


Best Regards.


Aijun Wang

Network R&D and Operation Support Department

China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.


发件人: Dongjie (Jimmy) [mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com] 
发送时间: 2018年10月8日 22:34
收件人: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org
抄送: draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext@ietf.org
主题: [Idr] 答复: WG Adoption call for
draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-02.txt (10/4/2018 to 10/18/2018)




This document describes valid use cases of building inter-domain topology
using  BGP-LS. Thus I support the adoption. 


And a few comment about section 4: 


The Link NLRI of BGP-LS includes the local node descriptors and remote node
descriptors, in which the AS number TLV can be carried. Can this be used to
specify the remote AS information? If so, the new remote AS number TLV may
not be necessary. 



Please clarify whether the remote ASBR-ID is similar to one of the following

a.       BGP router-ID as defined in

b.       IGP router-ID as defined in node descriptor sub-TLVs in RFC 7752, 

c.       IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID as defined in Link attribute TLVs of RFC 7752. 


It would be good if some existing TLVs can be reused to fulfill the use
cases described. 


Best regards,



发件人: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2018年10月5日 4:13
收件人: idr@ietf.org
抄送: draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext@ietf.org
主题: [Idr] WG Adoption call for
draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-02.txt (10/4/2018 to 10/18/2018)




This is a WG adoption call for
draft-want-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-02.txt (10/4/2018 to
10/18/2018)..  A quick link to the draft is at: 



Please comment on whether you feel this addition to the BGP-LS set of drafts
will help operational management of networks.  


Susan Hares  

IDR co-chair