Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Thu, 05 November 2020 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@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 CC0BE3A0E04 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 02:23:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.104
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 SoCwYymH3gqp for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 02:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C810B3A0DF9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 02:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml742-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CRfhJ23bjz67JMm for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:21:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml793-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.14) by fraeml742-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 11:23:26 +0100
Received: from fraeml793-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.14) by fraeml793-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 11:23:26 +0100
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by fraeml793-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 11:23:25 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.249]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:23:22 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
Thread-Index: AdawxZFiqE7+Vp6ETxeuJxQP7/0gpQAI21pg
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:23:21 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C8C060@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <045d01d6b0c7$c5eb4900$51c1db00$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <045d01d6b0c7$c5eb4900$51c1db00$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.130]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C8C060dggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fKR9-ie-SQfxTWBUvAfYOj_zZGg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 10:23:35 -0000

Yes, support with comments and questions.


1.       Q: Last time we discussed that do we need to carry SRv6 Endpoint behavior TLV for END.X SID, I think the answer is no. This TLV is used for SRv6 SID NLRI only, correct? Just to double check.



2.       Q: if we meet an error in BGP-LS, do we have any error handling? Like in PCEP, we need to check the sum of lengths each part of SRv6 SID, if the length is larger than 128 bits, this is an error. But I don't see the error handling in BGP-LS extensions.  It may be good to add  some text of usage, processing and handling of TLVs. Current revision seems a little bit simple to me.


a) Is the SRv6 technology ready for deployment or
are there known issues?

Yes.

b) Will SRv6 provide valuable support for
deployments of BGP-LS in support of source routing
(aka spring)?

Yes.

c) Is this draft ready for publication?

If you know of additional implementations, please send
a note to the idr chairs with the information or
respond to this email.

With comments.

Cheng




From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 11:25 AM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

This begins an IPR call and a 2 week WG LC for
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1 to 11/16/2020)

You can access the draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo/

This draft focus on the BGP-LS support for SRv6.
Spring has proposed the SRv6 support in RFC8402
(see section 3.1.3 for mechanisms and section 8.2 for
Security considerations).

There are two implementations: Cisco and GoBGP
You can see the implementation report at:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations

In your responses, please consider the following questions:
a) Is the SRv6 technology ready for deployment or
are there known issues?

b) Will SRv6 provide valuable support for
deployments of BGP-LS in support of source routing
(aka spring)?

c) Is this draft ready for publication?

If you know of additional implementations, please send
a note to the idr chairs with the information or
respond to this email.

Cheers, Susan Hares