Re: [Idr] Call for publication of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 - with multiple partial implementations (6/17 to 6/30)

Hi Boris,

This is not related to the SR Policy signaling from a controller to a
headend. It is related to the steering of BGP services over SR Policies.
Some of the details are in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22#section-8.8.1

I would suggest testing it for the global/default IPv4/IPv6 service that
needs to transit out of the provider network.

Thanks,
Ketan

On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 2:08 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> Boris and Ketan:
>
>
>
> Thank you for adding the GoBGP to the implementation reports.
>
>
>
> Ketan – Did you have any tips for Boris on how to check Color Community
> types 1 and 2  from your testing of
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18?
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue
>
> *From:* Boris Hassanov <bhassanov@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 7, 2022 3:41 PM
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>; Susan Hares <
> shares@ndzh.com>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] Call for publication of
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 - with multiple partial
> implementations (6/17 to 6/30)
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Sue and Ketan,
>
>
>
> I updated the report and added GoBGP info at the best of my knowledge
> (based on testing).
>
> I am not quite sure yet - how to check Color Community types 1 and 2
> support to make sure that  a methodology will be the right one.
>
>
>
> SY,
>
> Boris
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2022, 01:56:07 AM GMT+3, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Boris:
>
>
>
> The IDR implementation reports are on a wiki at:
>
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy%20implementations%20
>
>
>
> Just use your datatracker login.   If you do not have one, you can simply
> create one.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Boris Hassanov <bhassanov@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 4, 2022 2:15 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; Ketan Talaulikar <
> ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] Call for publication of
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 - with multiple partial
> implementations (6/17 to 6/30)
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Sue and Ketan,
>
>
>
> I worked with GoBGP and can provide more info if needed for that
> implementation report.
>
>
>
> SY,
>
> Boris
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 1, 2022, 05:07:06 PM GMT+3, Ketan Talaulikar <
> ketant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Sue,
>
>
>
> I believe there is support for this draft in open-source GoBGP:
> https://github.com/osrg/gobgp/blob/master/docs/sources/lib-srpolicy.md
>
>
>
> I am not aware of the testing (interoperability and any other) done with
> GoBGP though. A very quick glance at the code seems to suggest a degree of
> support for some of the TLVs/Sub-TLVs that you refer to in your email.
> Perhaps someone working on or using GoBGP can clarify.
>
>
>
> As authors, we have tried to include the necessary extensions to align
> with the base SPRING WG specification
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy. I believe support for specific
> features (i.e., TLVs/Sub-TLVs) gets implemented as required by operators
> and/or deployment solutions.
>
>
>
> I support the publication of this document.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 6:45 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> IDR:
>
>
>
> This is a 2 week call for approval for publication of
>
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18
>
> (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18
> ).
>
>
>
> This draft has past WG LC, and it has been implemented by five separate
> commercial vendors.
>
> (I  do not have any implementation reports from open-source vendors.)
>
>
>
> According to the implementation report, not all
>
> features have been implemented.
>
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy%20implementations%20
>
>
>
> At this point, it appears we do not have 2 implementations
>
> Supporting the following TLV codes:
>
> -          ENLP sub-TLV (code 14)
>
> -          Priority sub-TLV (code 15)
>
> -          SRv6 Binding SID (code 20)
>
> -          Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV (code 129), and
>
> -          Policy Name Sub-TLV (code 130).
>
>
>
> And only segment types A and B out of types A-K have been implemented.
>
>
>
> Should the IDR WG:
>
> a) publish this draft as is,
>
> b) put it in a “awaiting implementations” hold until more features are
> implemented,
>
> c) remove unimplemented features and publish?
>
>
>
> If you are an implemented (open-source or commercial), please
>
> Update your implementation status on the implementation page
>
> Or send me a note regarding your implementation.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>