Re: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt

" 徐小虎(义先) " <> Wed, 16 October 2019 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A471200E5; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-o2C72C1ygG; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 679EE1200D8; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1571224179; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=q50IMR6uHjHBybO9NNOk7CyxJxrm6D7mhfETqnMLB1w=; b=TUG4HnZJw2w7dI+FrDtGj0X+BsG/DRatpv5XPdTel06F/4XOZ/4kum5drtAYeippk178nMquEsD7ce35W5SbscZvIFTWZ/QJGu8BgtbhZ+o4WQPoO11z8onDeToYYBqj9Z0SifOhhMs6Pmz7tgm6C0NMEbwXLdy80daqDdKaUXQ=
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R151e4; CH=green; DM=||false|; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e02c03299;; NM=1; PH=DW; RN=3; SR=0; TI=W4_5657687_v5ForWebDing_0A932313_1571211316040_o7001c17798;
Received: from WS-web ([W4_5657687_v5ForWebDing_0A932313_1571211316040_o7001c17798]) by e02c03276.eu6 at Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:09:38 +0800
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:09:38 +0800
From: "徐小虎(义先)" <>
To: spring <>, SPRING WG List <>
Cc: idr <>
Reply-To: "徐小虎(义先)" <>
Message-ID: <>
X-Mailer: [Alimail-Mailagent revision 2765257][W4_5657687][v5ForWebDing][Safari]
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <eaac2838-0c1d-400f-9913-b30ac9cfdbf0.> <>, <05748614-0455-4763-91cd-a1669a8e08e7@Spark>
x-aliyun-mail-creator: W4_5657687_v5ForWebDing_NjATW96aWxsYS81LjAgKE1hY2ludG9zaDsgSW50ZWwgTWFjIE9TIFggMTBfMTJfNikgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNjA1LjEuMTUgKEtIVE1MLCBsaWtlIEdlY2tvKSBWZXJzaW9uLzEyLjAuMyBTYWZhcmkvNjA1LjEuMTU=XQ
In-Reply-To: <05748614-0455-4763-91cd-a1669a8e08e7@Spark>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=ALIBOUNDARY_58861_53e47940_5da6fa72_a5148"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:09:55 -0000

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your comments. Please see my response inline.

From:Jeff Tantsura <>
Send Time:2019年10月15日(星期二) 21:50
To:SPRING WG List <>; 徐小虎(义先) <>
Cc:idr <>
Subject:Re: [spring] [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt


few comments:

RFC7311 is very specific about containing routes with AIGP attribute within AIGP administrative domain, while not well defined in RFC7311, perhaps worth saying something?

[Xiaohu] In fact, the performance routing mechanism as described in this draft is targeted to be deployed across multiple domains which are under the control of the same administrative entity.

The value field of the AIGP TLV in RFC7311 is 8 octets long - draft defines 4 octet value, I assume you are following RFC8570 and RFC7471 encoding?

[Xiaohu] Your observation is correct.

Rather that making AIGP TLV and NETWORK_LATENCY TLV  mutually exclusive, perhaps defining how they interact, if both are present would be a better choice? 

[Xiaohu] I would consider it later.

Capability Advertisement - 3rd para doesn’t parse, be clear if it applies to labelled routes only (RFC7311 is vague here - "tunneling of some sort”)   


Manipulation of the Unidirectional Link delay sub-TLV in IGP’s could natively be done by using  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV in RFC8571.

[Xiaohu] Sure.

3107 has been obsoleted by 8277

[Xiaohu] will update it, thanks again for your comments.

Best regards,

On Oct 15, 2019, 11:57 AM +0200, 徐小虎(义先) <>, wrote:

Hi all,

I just recently realized that the performance routing mechanism as described in this draft could facilitate the deployment of segment routing across multiple ASes of an administrative entity where low-latency SR paths across ASes are needed for carrying latency-sensitive and high-priority traffic. In this way, there is no need to resort to centralized TE controllers for calculating low-latency paths across ASes. 

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Best regards,

From:internet-drafts <>
Send Time:2019年10月14日(星期一) 13:09
To:i-d-announce <>
Cc:idr <>
Subject:[Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt

 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.

         Title           : Performance-based BGP Routing Mechanism
         Authors         : Xiaohu Xu
                           Shraddha Hegde
                           Ketan Talaulikar
                           Mohamed Boucadair
                           Christian Jacquenet
  Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
  Pages           : 10
  Date            : 2019-10-13

    The current BGP specification doesn't use network performance metrics
    (e.g., network latency) in the route selection decision process.
    This document describes a performance-based BGP routing mechanism in
    which network latency metric is taken as one of the route selection
    criteria.  This routing mechanism is useful for those server
    providers with global reach to deliver low-latency network
    connectivity services to their customers.

 The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

 There are also htmlized versions available at:

 A diff from the previous version is available at:

 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
 until the htmlized version and diff are available at

 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

 Idr mailing list _______________________________________________
 Idr mailing list