Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt-(8/17/2022to8/31/2022
Liyan Gong <gongliyan@chinamobile.com> Tue, 30 August 2022 12:50 UTC
Return-Path: <gongliyan@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 C8C3FC14F734 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 05:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 1b-143DB2rPJ for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 05:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta2.chinamobile.com (cmccmta2.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3E8C14F72D for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 05:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.87]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app06-12006 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee6630e07a440a-7b0d4; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:50:44 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee6630e07a440a-7b0d4
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from gongliyan@chinamobile.com ( [10.1.6.52] ) by ajax-webmail-syy-appsvrnew04-11014 (Richmail) with HTTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:50:43 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:50:43 +0800
From: Liyan Gong <gongliyan@chinamobile.com>
To: shares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2b06630e0556dc1-0003d.Richmail.00009010198267033431@chinamobile.com>
References: <2b04630d6c41e88-00013.Richmail.00006040463076081537@chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_23745_1848101585.1661863843668"
X-Priority: 3
X-RM-TRANSID: 2b06630e0556dc1-0003d
Encrypt-Channel: web
X-RM-OA-ENC-TYPE: 0
X-RM-FontColor: 0
X-CLIENT-INFO: X-TIMING=0&X-MASSSENT=0&X-SENSITIVE=0
X-Mailer: Richmail_Webapp(V2.4.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mBjxOvXX0w-psdcAXLxXY5Yf6ZU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt-(8/17/2022to8/31/2022
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: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:50:54 -0000
Hi Susan and WG,
I support this adoption. It is a good solution using flowspec to steer packets into an SRv6 policy.
Best Regards,
Liyan
----邮件原文---- 发件人：Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> 收件人："idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org> 抄 送: (无) 发送时间：2022-08-17 22:59:03 主题：[Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022to 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 – redirect original flow
C = 1 – 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