IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022to 8/31/2022

姜文颖 <jiangwenying@chinamobile.com> Fri, 19 August 2022 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangwenying@chinamobile.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 D4FC5C14F738 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OTYbvKYmdbht for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta3.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F19C1524B6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.13]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app10-12010 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eea62ffa4aa128-e6ad5; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:56:45 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2eea62ffa4aa128-e6ad5
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from jiangwenying@chinamobile.com ( [123.122.131.110] ) by ajax-webmail-syy-appsvr07-11007 (Richmail) with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:56:44 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:56:44 +0800
From: 姜文颖 <jiangwenying@chinamobile.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2aff62ffa2680c7-00033.Richmail.00005000963026286567@chinamobile.com>
References: <BYAPR08MB487272B6440945C76FACC0D8B36A9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_152781_557027485.1660921004665"
X-Priority: 3
X-RM-TRANSID: 2aff62ffa2680c7-00033
Encrypt-Channel: web
X-RM-OA-ENC-TYPE: 0
X-RM-FontColor: 0
X-CLIENT-INFO: X-TIMING=0&X-MASSSENT=0&X-SENSITIVE=0
X-Mailer: Richmail_Webapp(V2.4.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/h-NsTBGSJuiTEAyX2A_A6VpRpKk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022to 8/31/2022
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 14:56:49 -0000

Hi Sue and WG,



I support the adoption of this draft. My replies to the questions as below: 



> 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt

[Wenying] Yes, I agree. This action of C bit is a very useful for redirect-ip scenario.



> 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect.

[Wenying] Yes, this document provides a very simple way to direct IP traffic to SRv6 policies, it follows the SRv6 policy standard exactly, identifying SRv6 policies by the <color, endpoint> tuple. 

This document is a good addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect，the two drafts are useful and solved the different problems for different application scenarios.



> 3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks?

[Wenying] Yes, the work is helpful for promoting the deployment of SRv6 networks. Currently, We have deployed this solution on ChinaMobile39s IP backbone network.



Thanks and respect, 

Wenying











----邮件原文----发件人：Susan Hares  <shares@ndzh.com>收件人："idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>抄　送: (无)发送时间：2022-08-17 22:59:03主题：[Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022to 8/31/2022
    

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/


 


During your discussion of this draft, please consider:


 


1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the


action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found


draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt


 


Figure 1 : Local Administrator


 


0                   1


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


|          Reserved           |C|


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


 


C = 0 – redirect original flow


C = 1 – redirect copy of original flow


 


This bit augments the Redirect to IP action in RFC8955


And RFC8956.


 


2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature


in addition to  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/


 


See the following thread for a discussion of this in March:


 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HENTMEoiMJGmcMuVz7LTYclCSdw/


 


3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks?


 


We’ll discuss this draft at the IDR interim on 8/29/2022.


 


Cheerily, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email