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

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Tue, 03 November 2020 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@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 48FB03A12E8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 23:37:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 FvnWlCyIum1I for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 23:37:07 -0800 (PST)
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 D197F3A0062 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 23:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml734-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 18C61F46CE2190036357 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:37:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml734-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.85) by lhreml734-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:37:04 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.38) by lhreml734-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:37:04 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.215]) by dggemm421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:36:57 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr <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+Vp6ETxeuJxQP7/0gpQA7oqyW
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:36:57 +0000
Message-ID: 2A9BE175-3F03-4A6F-8FC9-0CB208832FDE
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:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2A9BE1753F034A6F8FC90CB208832FDE_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jfaZQ8yypINtPAv25EfJwJgzFvY>
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 07:37:08 -0000

Hi All,

I support the WG LC of the draft. There have been multiple implementations and the draft is well written.


Best Regards,

Zhenbin (Robin)

--------------------------------------------------
李振斌 Li Zhenbin
Mobile: +86-13651017745<tel:+86-13651017745>/+968-91797068
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>

发件人:Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
收件人:idr <idr@ietf.org>
时 间:2020-11-02 11:25:58
主 题:[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