Re: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt

"UTTARO, JAMES" <> Wed, 16 October 2019 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F627120100; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 05:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sVJmjAkhKwXI; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C23E21208F7; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 05:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id x9GBstb8040929; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:02:55 -0400
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2vp1491vpa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:02:54 -0400
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x9GC2rav007925; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:02:53 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x9GC2kUt007815 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:02:46 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Service) with ESMTP id 58A8D4039342; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:02:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Service) with ESMTPS id 346C04039340; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:02:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:02:45 -0400
From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <>
To: "徐小虎(义先)" <>, spring <>, SPRING WG List <>
CC: idr <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHVhBJK4d9LcCEvgkGvNjq07jESX6ddKitw
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:02:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <eaac2838-0c1d-400f-9913-b30ac9cfdbf0.> <>, <05748614-0455-4763-91cd-a1669a8e08e7@Spark> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F4DA16476MISOUT7MSGUSRCD_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-16_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910160108
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:03:05 -0000

Comments In-Line..

              Jim Uttaro

From: Idr <> On Behalf Of ???(??)
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 7:10 AM
To: spring <>; SPRING WG List <>
Cc: idr <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your comments. Please see my response inline.

From:Jeff Tantsura <<>>
Send Time:2019年10月15日(星期二) 21:50
To:SPRING WG List <<>>; 徐小虎(义先) <<>>
Cc:idr <<>>
Subject:Re: [spring] [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt


few comments:

RFC7311 is very specific about containing routes with AIGP attribute within AIGP administrative domain, while not well defined in RFC7311, perhaps worth saying something?
[Jim U>] Yes.. The intention was to keep it loose as the use of BGP 3107 between AS domains should only require that administration of both is under the same entity. TBH I am not sure on that one either, I think it should be coordinating as AIGP metric needs to reflect the same metric upon evaluation in either domain.

[Xiaohu] In fact, the performance routing mechanism as described in this draft is targeted to be deployed across multiple domains which are under the control of the same administrative entity.

The value field of the AIGP TLV in RFC7311 is 8 octets long - draft defines 4 octet value, I assume you are following RFC8570 and RFC7471 encoding?

[Xiaohu] Your observation is correct.

Rather that making AIGP TLV and NETWORK_LATENCY TLV  mutually exclusive, perhaps defining how they interact, if both are present would be a better choice?
[Jim U>] Not sure why you need more that AIGP here.

[Xiaohu] I would consider it later.

Capability Advertisement - 3rd para doesn’t parse, be clear if it applies to labelled routes only (RFC7311 is vague here - "tunneling of some sort”)


Manipulation of the Unidirectional Link delay sub-TLV in IGP’s could natively be done by using  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV in RFC8571.

[Xiaohu] Sure.

3107 has been obsoleted by 8277

[Xiaohu] will update it, thanks again for your comments.

Best regards,

On Oct 15, 2019, 11:57 AM +0200, 徐小虎(义先) <<>>, wrote:

Hi all,

I just recently realized that the performance routing mechanism as described in this draft could facilitate the deployment of segment routing across multiple ASes of an administrative entity where low-latency SR paths across ASes are needed for carrying latency-sensitive and high-priority traffic. In this way, there is no need to resort to centralized TE controllers for calculating low-latency paths across ASes.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Best regards,

From:internet-drafts <<>>
Send Time:2019年10月14日(星期一) 13:09
To:i-d-announce <<>>
Cc:idr <<>>
Subject:[Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Performance-based BGP Routing Mechanism
        Authors         : Xiaohu Xu
                          Shraddha Hegde
                          Ketan Talaulikar
                          Mohamed Boucadair
                          Christian Jacquenet
 Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
 Pages           : 10
 Date            : 2019-10-13

   The current BGP specification doesn't use network performance metrics
   (e.g., network latency) in the route selection decision process.
   This document describes a performance-based BGP routing mechanism in
   which network latency metric is taken as one of the route selection
   criteria.  This routing mechanism is useful for those server
   providers with global reach to deliver low-latency network
   connectivity services to their customers.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:<>

There are also htmlized versions available at:<><>

A diff from the previous version is available at:<>

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:<>

Idr mailing list<><>
Idr mailing list<><>