IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com> Wed, 10 February 2021 07:54 UTC

Return-Path: <zhuangshunwan@huawei.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 2ADB23A0DD6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 23:54:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DDuwV3EICUEs for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 23:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC49B3A0D58 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 23:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml745-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DbBgP3Pjmz67mKq for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:47:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) by fraeml745-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.226) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:54:03 +0100
Received: from nkgeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.160) by nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:54:01 +0800
Received: from nkgeml708-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.160]) by nkgeml708-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.160]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:54:01 +0800
From: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)
Thread-Index: Adb7C8Tapzr6LUQXS7CFnBh8kC9NpgEcaC/g
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 07:54:01 +0000
Message-ID: <056b92f6ad6d43e0866174fdc967f85a@huawei.com>
References: <010e01d6fb0b$c5c08970$51419c50$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <010e01d6fb0b$c5c08970$51419c50$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.152.178]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_056b92f6ad6d43e0866174fdc967f85ahuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nx0NuFVDYIn2AHCBuWsLCYgNKlY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 07:54:09 -0000

Hi Sue and All,

I support the adoption as a co-author.

1)      Will this new ORF filter reduce routing information at key points?
[Shunwan] Yes.

2)      Should the WG consider this draft given it has an IPR claim or
[Shunwan] Yes.
  Would the IDR WG prefer another approach?
[Shunwan] We've already discussed various options in IDR list, the current solution is an optimization solution based on the community's input. We welcome the IDR community's more comments to improve the solution.

3)      Is this draft ready to be adopted and refined as WG draft?
[Shunwan] Yes. I think this draft is in a good shape, It describes the practical problems and provides a reasonable solution, and we could continue to improve this solution.

Best Regards,
Shunwan


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:38 PM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (from 2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

This draft defines a new Outbound Route Filter (ORF) type, called the
Route Distinguisher ORF (RD-ORF).  RD-ORF is applicable when the
routers do not exchange VPN routing information directly (e.g.
routers in single-domain connect via Route Reflector, or routers in
Option B/Option AB/Option C cross-domain scenario).

Please be aware that this draft has one IPR statement attached.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4579/..

Please consider the following questions in your review and comments:

1) Will this new ORF filter reduce routing information at key points?
2) Should the WG consider this draft given it has an IPR claim or
    Would the IDR WG prefer another approach?
3) Is this draft ready to be adopted and refined as WG draft?

Cheerily, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email