[Idr] 答复: draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)

"Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Fri, 25 October 2019 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C232B120274 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 02:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OEhJFCfyYVLQ for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 02:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (m176115.mail.qiye.163.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25723120048 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 02:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WangajPC (unknown []) by m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 8F63D663912; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:02:47 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
References: <015d01d582c4$388e04d0$a9aa0e70$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <015d01d582c4$388e04d0$a9aa0e70$@ndzh.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:02:49 +0800
Message-ID: <00c701d58b12$fa3f43e0$eebdcba0$@org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C8_01D58B56.086283E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdWCvtFpBLL09mJXRVKaSdG0p0gs7gIURiXA
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a6e0227696c9373kuws8f63d663912
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pe25r-Vq4H9oOUOhFwgQU0zDlCA>
Subject: [Idr] 答复: draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 09:02:58 -0000

Hi, All:


Support the adoption.  This draft can enhance the capabilities of network


Some clarifications are needed:

1.  The MED and AS-Path action can only influence the inbound traffic. For
outbound traffic, “Preference” value can be used. Should the draft include
also the “Preference” action?

2.  The referred draft
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05 is
inactive now. Is there any risk to solve such problem based on it?

3.  For policy distribution, will you consider other protocol such as PCEP?
Because BGP is mainly one peer-to-peer protocol, but the policy distribution
is from controller to router.



Best Regards.


Aijun Wang

China Telecom


发件人: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2019年10月15日 3:19
收件人: 'idr wg'
主题: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to


This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt 

(10/14 to 10/28/2019).  You can access the draft at: 




In your discussion regarding this draft consider if:


1)      Passing extended policy in BGP  is useful,

2)      Passing policy in wide community atom is a technical sound

3)      A deployment need exists for this technology. 



Susan Hares

Co-chair and shepherd