IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt [4/18 - 5/2/2019] - 2 week WG adoption call

"chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn" <chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn> Tue, 07 May 2019 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn>
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 5E7B212018A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2019 18:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 pugOIQ9ghUPa for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2019 18:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BD01200EA for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2019 18:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.218:7396.272182681
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-120.88.10.211 (unknown [172.18.0.218]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 88A732800BA; Tue, 7 May 2019 09:38:12 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from EHLO ip<120.88.10.211> ([172.18.0.218]) by App0025 with ESMTP id e5ede295-7148-4736-b7da-cc8dc1317a24 for shares@ndzh.com; Tue May 7 09:38:14 2019
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.218
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 09:38:15 +0800
From: "chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn" <chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <013301d4f5ef$b1b51310$151f3930$@ndzh.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.9.156[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2019050709371389571939@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart673324623817_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_MLaZeYyMoe-dUeA3yzgZo9Qz94>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt [4/18 - 5/2/2019] - 2 week WG adoption call
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, 07 May 2019 01:38:22 -0000

Hi Susan and ALL,

  The Centralized control and delivery IDs mechanism is good for us to deploy the Segment Routing， especially in cross AS situation.
  As the BGP/BGP-LS has better interaction to different brand equiment than other southbound protocols, it would be an optional choise for deployment.
  I support this draft adoption. 
  Thanks.


HUANAN CHEN（陈华南）
Data Communication Research Department
Guangdong Research Institute of China Telecom Co.,Ltd.
Mail：chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn 
 
From: Susan Hares
Date: 2019-04-18 22:04
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt [4/18 - 5/2/2019] - 2 week WG adoption call
This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call for draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt.  You can access the draft at: 
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext/
 
In your comments, consider: 
 
1)      Does this draft mechanisms for  extending BGP-LS to provide IDs for allocation provide a beneficial addition to BGP mechanisms for segment routing? 
2)      Is the mechanism well-formed enough to adopted as a WG draft?   
3)      Do you see any problems with using these IDs for flow redirection? 
4)      Do you support extending BGP-LS? 
5)      Should we provide an early allocation for this technology? 
6)      Do you know of any early implementations? 
 
By answering these questions during WG Adoption call, you will help John and I determine what issues need to be considered prior to finalizing this WG draft.    Your answer will help us increase the speed of processing BGP-LS drafts.   
 
If enough people indicate that they wish an early allocation upon adoption, I will then send this early allocation to Alvaro.  
 
Sue Hares 
 
PS – I’m trying new methods of WG adoption calls to help speed up the process in IDR WG.   Please send any thoughts on these new methods to me or John.

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status