[Idr] Re: draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue


I support WG adoption of this draft.  I think the idea of adding the NRP ID
Sub TLV into BGP-LS would be very helpful in stateful PCE instantiating an
SR policy with network slicing, making the SR Policy network slicing aware
and now the SR headend node can report on the NRP ID which is associated
with the CP using new BGP LS NRP ID TLV encoding.


To your specific questions:

   1. Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information
   valuable to networks?

Yes I think it would be valuable for networks as now the SR policy is
Network slice aware for steering actions along a slice sub topology.


   2. Does the draft clearly specify the TLV?

Yes the draft clearly specifies the TLV and it’s use

   3. Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID?

No security issues.  For network slicing using SR policy AFAIK it is
necessary for the head end SR node to be network slicing aware and in doing
so being able to associate the network slice via NRP ID to the SR Policy
CP.  This is necessary for network slicing.



   4. Is this document ready to adopt?

Yes this document is well written and explains the goal of the draft
clearly

Thanks

Gyan

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 9:41 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This begins a 2+ week WG adoption call (7/22 to 8/9/2024)for
>
> draft-chen-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09.txt.
>
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/)
>
>
>
> The authors should respond to this WG adoption call with an email with the
> IPR statement.
>
>
>
> Document focus:
>
> This document defines a new TLV in BGP-LS to report the NRP-ID
>
> associated with an SR Candidate Policy Path (CP).
>
>
>
> Links to Spring: During the 5/20/2024 interim, the following question was
> raised:
>
> What is the relationship between the information in this draft and the
> information in draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments?
>
>
>
> Ran answered the following:
>
> Due to the resource SID mechanism defined in the
> draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments
>
> (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments/
> )
>
> the headend node does not have information about the relationship between
>
> Candidate Path (CP) and NRP IDs, so it currently does not consider
> reporting the
>
> relationship between CP and NRP ID. The current draft is only for the
> scenario
>
> where data packets carry NRP ID.  The NRP ID is used with the normal SR
> SID as
>
> the resource used will be indicated by the NRP-ID.  An SR Policy candidate
> path(CP)
>
> may be instantiated with a specific NRP on the headend node via a local
> configuration,
>
> PCEP, or BGP SR Policy signaling. Then the state and attributes of the NRP
> associated
>
> with the candidate path of SR policy can be distributed to the controller.
>
>
>
> In your discussion, please consider:
>
>
>
>    1. Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information
>    valuable to networks?
>    2. Does the draft clearly specify the TLV?
>    3. Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID?
>    4. Is this document ready to adopt?
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Sue
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>