[Idr] [IDR] Questions regarding draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext
"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 10:19 UTC
Return-Path: <rainsword.wang@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 79AC3120242; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 03:19:01 -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=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 30L34Nd4AbkC; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 03:18:59 -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 E43F012022E; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 03:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7FBB0B0D2CDA987246AE; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:18:56 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:18:55 +0100
Received: from NKGEML514-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.19]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 18:13:28 +0800
From: "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [IDR] Questions regarding draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext
Thread-Index: AdVMOJt7jNPQrPmHQpm89zff5sqK1g==
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 10:13:29 +0000
Message-ID: <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C8DDD73@nkgeml514-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.185]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C8DDD73nkgeml514mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/h0Z5iis8shRNPeteLkwweFNZ9js>
Subject: [Idr] [IDR] Questions regarding draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext
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, 06 Aug 2019 10:19:01 -0000
Hi authors, I have some questions about this draft, comment with blue words. 2. BGP-LS Extensions for SRv6 o SRv6 End.X SID of the link state routing adjacency or the BGP EPE Peer Adjacency is advertised via a new SRv6 End.X SID TLV // No doubt about this o The BGP EPE Peer Node and Peer Set SID context is advertised via a new SRv6 BGP EPE Peer Node SID TLV // Here use a new TLV to descripe peer node & peer set 7.2. SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV The BGP Peer Node SID and Peer Set SID for SR with MPLS dataplane are specified in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. The similar Peer Node and Peer Set SID functionality can be realized with SRv6 using the END.X SRv6 SID. The SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV is an optional TLV for use in the BGP-LS Attribute for an SRv6 SID NLRI corresponding to BGP protocol. This TLV MUST be included along with SRv6 End.X SID that is associated with the BGP Peer Node or Peer Set functionality. // Here said the peer node sid followed by the SRv6 SID NLRI 6. SRv6 SID NLRI A new "Link-State NLRI Type" is defined for SRv6 SID information as following: o Link-State NLRI Type: SRv6 SID NLRI (value TBD see IANA Considerations Section 8.1). 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identifier | | (64 bits) | ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| | Local Node Descriptors (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SRv6 SID Descriptors (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 11: SRv6 SID NLRI Format // Here defined the SRv6 SID NLRI. If we use this NLRI, when we have more than one peer node, We may construct routes with: Route1: SRv6 SID NLRI1 (Local Node Desc + SID1) + Peer Node SID (peer1) + other Attr Tlv Route2: SRv6 SID NLRI2 (Local Node Desc + SID2) + Peer Node SID (peer2) + other Attr Tlv Why do we have to change to this? What are the benefits of this change? For draft draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe, the route will be Route1: Link NLRI1(Local Node Desc + peer1) + Peer Node SID (peer1) + other Attr Tlv Route2: Link NLRI2(Local Node Desc + peer2) + Peer Node SID (peer2) + other Attr Tlv Also in this format, when a peer join a peer set, how to create the route? Perhaps: Route1: SRv6 SID NLRI1 (Local Node Desc + SID1) + Peer Node SID (peer1) + other Attr Tlv Route2: SRv6 SID NLRI1 (Local Node Desc + SID2) + Peer Node SID (S-flag) + other Attr Tlv What’s the relationship about the two routes ? If there exist a route3: Route3: SRv6 SID NLRI1 (Local Node Desc + SID3) + Peer Node SID (S-flag) + other Attr Tlv Now the Peer node route1 belongs to route2’s Peer Set or route3’s Peer Set? But it’s clear for old mpls epe draft: Route1: Link NLRI1(Local Node Desc + peer1) + Peer Node SID (peer1) + Peer Set Sid(set1)+other Attr Tlv Route2: Link NLRI2(Local Node Desc + peer2) + Peer Node SID (peer2) + Peer Set Sid(set1)+ other Attr Tlv Best Regards Haibo
- [Idr] [IDR] Questions regarding draft-ietf-idr-bg… Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] [IDR] Questions regarding draft-ietf-id… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] [IDR] Questions regarding draft-ietf-id… Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] [IDR] Questions regarding draft-ietf-id… Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] [IDR] Questions regarding draft-ietf-id… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)