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

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <> Tue, 11 June 2019 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CA71200FF; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <Vu0EDSNsraIG>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Improper folded header field made up entirely of whitespace (char 20 hex): References:>\n
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
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=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vu0EDSNsraIG; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DFBB1200FE; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B5A594851E2CF8903EB9; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:50:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:50:33 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:50:11 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <>
To: Shraddha Hegde <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution
Thread-Index: AdUEi/lYsgagiyOKQv6W3D1f7ronogax+OGwACxRGyAAAOIrgA==
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:50:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB0260C268dggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:50:38 -0000



From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 11:45 AM
To: 'Shraddha Hegde' <>; Shraddha Hegde <>;
Subject: RE: draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution

Hi Shraddha,

Sorry for my delay. We plan to update the draft by IETF 105. Please see my reply inline.


From: Shraddha Hegde []
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 2:19 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <<>>;<>
Subject: RE: draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution


Any update on these comments?


From: Idr <<>> On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:51 AM
Subject: [Idr] draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution


I have a few comments on the document.

1. Section 3 :SR Policy for Path Identifier
Change to "Path Identifier for SR Policy"
 [Cheng] Looks better. Path Identifier in SR policy?  Will update in next revision.

2. sec 3 SR Policy for Path Identifier

The  path segment can appear at both segment-list level and SR policy level, and it could also appear only
at one level depending upon usecase. Path segment at segment list level and at SR-Policy level may be
same or may be different based on usecase and the ID allocation scope.
[Cheng] Agree.

3. I think there should be a separate section on allocation of Path Identifier.
The scope of allocation and resultant scaling considerations.

[Cheng] Let's see how to add it on next revision.

4. SR Path Segment Sub-TLV
The length of the SR Path Segment is defined to be of variable length.
This should be well defined for SR-MPLS to be 20 bit and  upto 128 bit
for SRv6.
 [Cheng] Agree, but I think 32bit for SR-MPLS will be better.