Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)

Hi Gyan,

Thanks for your support and comments.

Agree with you that segment list name is also an option. Before version-04 of this draft, both segment list ID sub-tlv and segment list name sub-tlv were defined.
However, after discussions, SR policies would now have policy names, and candidate paths would have path names, so in each path, segment lists only need an ID for identification. Therefore, in the latest version, only segment list ID has been retained. Besides, PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] also uses a 4-octet ID (called Path ID) to identify segment list.

Thanks,
Changwang

From: Gyan Mishra [mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 10:35 PM
To: linchangwang (RD)
Cc: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)

Hi Changwang

Understood that BSID cannot be used as their could be multiple SID lists under the candidate path.

I was not thinking the candidate path name but the segment list name that could be used as the ID.  Also using Rest or Netconf / Yang you should be able to pull all the details of the SR policy and active candidate path and corresponding sid list details and the statistics or via API on the SIDs from the SR source node.  Everything that’s on the router cli and more should be able capture via methods mentioned.  As well from the stateful PCE/SDN controller router  has the SR policy database as well you should be able to via API gather all the detailed sid statistics for monitoring from any vendor implementation specific front end GUI.

Thanks

Gyan

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:01 AM linchangwang <linchangwang.04414@h3c.com<mailto:linchangwang.04414@h3c.com>> wrote:
Hi Gyan,

Thanks for your support and comments.

Currently, BSID is at the candidate path level and is only used for traffic steering. However, BSID is not appropriate as the identifier for the SID list when there are multiple SID lists under a candidate path. Similarly, if a segment list references the candidate path name, it would face similar issues as mentioned above.

Thanks,
Changwang

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 12:18 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)

I support WG adoption.

Both drafts are different and have completely different purposes and should not  to be combined.

draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05
This draft defines an SR policy extension for the SID list ID attribute that can be advertised in BGP.  This SID ID is also used to identify the SID list to be sent to controller to gather statistics.

draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric/

This draft defines an SR policy metric path possibly a new path attribute for best path selection in case there are multiple paths to same destination.

Few questions

Today a SID list has a name that is referred to to by the SR policy candidate path that the BSID binds  to the forwarding plane for the path to be instantiated.

Could the Active candidate path defined by the  SID list using manual or autogenerated BSID to bind candidate path to forwarding plane - Could the BSID be used ad the identifier or even the name of the SID  list be used as the SID ID in the SR policy TEA that is distributed to the controller?

Thanks

Gyan

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 2:08 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:
This begins a 2-week WG Adoption poll for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt
(10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id/

The authors should respond to this email with an email indicating whether they know of any IPR related to this draft.

This draft proposes a change to the
Tunnel Encaps Attribute for the SR Policy Tunnel type
in the segment list.  The change is to add
a segment list identifier:

         Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy
                Binding SID
                SRv6 Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Policy Candidate Path Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Segment List Identifier
                    Segment
                    Segment

Please note that draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05.txt
Proposes adding a metric value to the segment list.

In your comments on adoption, please consider:

1.       Should we merge draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05

And drft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id?

2.       Is there value in adding a segment list identifier?

3.       Is there any technical problem with the description and the procedures for handling the segment list identifier?

Cheerily, Sue Hares

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出
的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、
或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本
邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!