IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com> Mon, 29 August 2022 02:38 UTC

Return-Path: <liuyisong@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 C4EEBC152569 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 fAh-7rM44FyR for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86A6C1522D3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.89]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee4630c269fb1d-668a2; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:38:23 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee4630c269fb1d-668a2
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from CMCCPC (unknown[117.136.38.160]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvrnew05-12026 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2efa630c269d1d5-5799c; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:38:22 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2efa630c269d1d5-5799c
From: Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, idr@ietf.org
References: <BYAPR08MB487272B6440945C76FACC0D8B36A9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB487272B6440945C76FACC0D8B36A9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:38:21 +0800
Message-ID: <002c01d8bb50$683ebef0$38bc3cd0$@chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01D8BB93.76633770"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: Adi7TmNKYMX5HCXgRKO1OZm4GTjDgA==
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jesUeuMN7aIpjUAxPvcT8_VolxI>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 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: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 02:38:29 -0000

Hi Sue & WG,

 

I support the adoption of this draft as co-author. Here are my replies:

1)       Yes, I agree. 

2)       Yes, I agree. I think this draft is a good addition to
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect, and it can provide a solution to
solve a different problem in a different scenario.

3)       Yes, I think it will very useful for SRv6 deployment in the
operator networks.

 

Best Regards

Yisong Liu

 

·¢¼þÈË: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> ´ú±í Susan Hares
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2022Äê8ÔÂ17ÈÕ 22:59
ÊÕ¼þÈË: idr@ietf.org
Ö÷Ìâ: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to
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 ¨C redirect original flow 

C = 1 ¨C 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