Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com> Tue, 11 June 2019 03:49 UTC

Return-Path: <chengli13@huawei.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 59FE1120108; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 l0Y-E8q2tPBx; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F7531200FE; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8CDA4F6A54DB75A55CEF; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:49:03 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.49) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:49:02 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.38]) by dggeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:48:50 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment@ietf.org" <draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment@ietf.org>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment
Thread-Index: AdUD8LJw2VRtfkBWRQ2Pk6e5jY9wGAbY0aogAC0RpRA=
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:48:49 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB0260C255@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB3943C32D63B37858EEB92944D5300@BYAPR05MB3943.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <SN6PR05MB3950B51C93BFFE795883A489D5130@SN6PR05MB3950.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR05MB3950B51C93BFFE795883A489D5130@SN6PR05MB3950.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.185.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB0260C255dggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UabRvUXIYl0Eap5b78CBnq_tRMA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment
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, 11 Jun 2019 03:49:07 -0000

Hi Shraddha,

Sorry for my delay, I agree with your comments, will update to address them in the next revision.

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:shraddha@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 2:20 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment

Authors,

Any update on these comments?

Rgds
Shraddha

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 4:01 PM
To: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment@ietf.org<mailto:draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment@ietf.org>
Cc: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment

Authors,


Some comments on the draft.

1.       Section 3.1 SR Path Segment
“Also, it can be used for identifying an SR candidate path or an SR
   Policy defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dli-2Didr-2Dbgp-2Dls-2Dsr-2Dpolicy-2Dpath-2Dsegment-2D01&d=DwMFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdVKcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=fhDBtbOJt9FNZe9QgtQaQqUrpMmmysNkjcxgoViXQFE&s=-1GDP7HACe3TkVsevxfmZGEU2Zz4YhUtZh5r7Zcwsm0&e=>].”

When the path-segment is used for identifying SR policy/candidate path,
The SR Path Segment sub-TLV should appear in the SR policy as below. Pls update figure 1.

SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
           Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
           Tunnel Type: SR Policy
               Binding SID
               Preference
               Priority
               Policy Name
               Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
               Path Segment
               Bidirectioanl Path
                   Segment List
                       Weight
                       Segment
                       Segment


The Path Segment Sub-TLV may be associated with SR Policy as well as the Segment List
Simultaneously, or may be associated with SR-Policy or segment List alone based on usecases.
2.       I suggest to update the IANA section, with code points and NLRIs/attributes where the TLVs/sub-TLVs appear in BGP-LS NLRI
Along with the code-points. It’s useful for implementors as well as IANA to keep the registry up to date.

Rgds
Shraddha