IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-chen-idr-bier-te-path-04.txt (6/22/2022 to 7/6/2022

xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Tue, 05 July 2022 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
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 DE4B7C14F73D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 19:01:33 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, 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 B8NAuJg-d1r9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 19:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F41C6C14F73A for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 19:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4LcQrj24cBz4xVng; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 10:01:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 265212S9001864; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 10:01:02 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 10:01:02 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 10:01:02 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd62c39b5e04af1dff
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202207051001028167005@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 265212S9001864
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.138.novalocal with ID 62C39B75.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1656986485/4LcQrj24cBz4xVng/62C39B75.000/10.5.228.81/[10.5.228.81]/mse-fl1.zte.com.cn/<xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 62C39B75.000/4LcQrj24cBz4xVng
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jexKH_2w-EnZLKa6ZKtpodbwjtU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-chen-idr-bier-te-path-04.txt (6/22/2022 to 7/6/2022
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: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 02:01:34 -0000

Hi Sue & WG,

I  have read and reviewed the draft. I support the adoption of this draft.
I think it is useful for BGP to support the distribution of BIER-TE path and the extensions seems reasonable for BGP and BIER-TE architecture from my point.


Best Regards,
Quan


<<[Idr] WG adoption call for draft-chen-idr-bier-te-path-04.txt (6/22/2022 to 7/6/2022
<<Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 22 June 2022 16:04 UTCShow header
<<This begins a 2 week Adoption call (6/22/2022 to 7/6/2022) for draft-chen-idr-bier-te-path-04.txt (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bier-te-<<path/). This draft provides extensions to BGP to distribute BIER (bit replication traffic/tree) data via BGP using a new NLRI (AFI = IPv4 or IPv6, new SAFI) <<and new options for the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (TEA). The NLRI includes an RD + Bier Domain tunnel identifier. In your comments, please <<consider if this draft: 1) Does this draft specify appropriate BGP mechanisms for a controller to distribute bier information? 2) Does this mechanism <<correctly integrates into a) the BIER architecture (draft-ietf-bier-te-arch) and b) Multicast VPNs (BESS)? 3) Will this technology aid the deployment of Bier <<multicast forwarding in operational networks? Cheers, Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email