IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 77075120324 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=QYwXioYt; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Fp0bW/vs
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 Vbfe1q7uWNFr for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEEAE120198 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=29601; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1555670658; x=1556880258; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=mMKLl9cHC9BzmQLGrj51+Q92A9+/isgYcrVSSM7M1yY=; b=QYwXioYtBjQskwrPynH+A/Eucom/HNKrd1UiEvbtt4ItXKjqrbUU+ILb 8EbfShCumlSs5WwccF4FekJZMIc9BT6TJEeRCm8XNC/MJL3DtbwYWEN9s Zp8SZ9POpSJAVrjP9QaOTNHe3BMAeakVerV4a8SH5DSPNqKnf9lljTL5v Y=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:CSywUBMLDFnfz7TWa3El6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEuKg/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDOIdJSwdDjMwXmwI6B8vQAEb2IdbhbjcxG4JJU1o2t3w=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AJAAChpblc/5pdJa1mGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGBDi8kLANoVSAECygKhASBX4FoA4RSikVKgWglfog8jWKBLoF7DgEBGAEKCoMJgTcCF4YCIzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQJtHAyFSgEBAQQBARsGChMBASwMDwIBCBEDAQEBIQoCAgIfBgsdCAEBBAESgyIBgR1MAxwBDpxAAooUcYEvgnkBAQWBRkGCew0Lgg0DBoEyAYtJF4F/gRABJwwTghc1PoIaRwEBAwGBfQYHgl0xgiaNMIQ/lC44CQKCCIYPiFGDShuCC4YojFyDZYgahjmBSIkHgy8CBAIEBQIOAQEFgU84gVZwFTsqAYJBgWokDBeDTIUUhT9ygSmOKAGBIAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,369,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="262144540"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 19 Apr 2019 10:44:16 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3JAiGQe016833 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:44:16 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 05:44:15 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 05:44:15 -0500
Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 05:44:14 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mMKLl9cHC9BzmQLGrj51+Q92A9+/isgYcrVSSM7M1yY=; b=Fp0bW/vsqXv+getPe1nDMG3ow0HEcg6nq00F3IkRbWRZYM+AYNzQZ8EfuWTo3AcNjl0KOJ1mFNMXBdE2bWhe6/oVZ1XbdyAntZ1pi9g58vZzYs/ynV1LPw72HhLbBFXFcUdcDK1/qu/fCJH5FpOA6ZRLAR5zSiW+bmQtmXU9qGQ=
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.112.11) by BN6PR1101MB2307.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.113.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.18; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:44:13 +0000
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9105:38a0:c6b:f455]) by BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9105:38a0:c6b:f455%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1771.026; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:44:13 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call
Thread-Index: AdT18PKNf1StrQ3RRRaQiBRQFVL9LwAA0HEQABUOWwAADLdPAA==
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:44:12 +0000
Message-ID: <D7669A31-BBC0-4212-AA3A-8402C51B5806@cisco.com>
References: <015501d4f5f2$7a72ed70$6f58c850$@ndzh.com> <SN6PR11MB2845DF1ABF12D8D8FA4586FCC1260@SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <9af53b3d-51e2-420a-8ea4-229e687c6dd8@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <9af53b3d-51e2-420a-8ea4-229e687c6dd8@Spark>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.83]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b8ea2c7c-605a-4d81-41b9-08d6c4b3f6a1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2307;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR1101MB2307:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 4
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR1101MB2307A1AF08C4BBCDF7B0A63DC2270@BN6PR1101MB2307.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0012E6D357
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(346002)(136003)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(25786009)(606006)(86362001)(486006)(33656002)(66476007)(82746002)(8676002)(6486002)(2501003)(26005)(81166006)(64756008)(6436002)(66446008)(91956017)(66556008)(97736004)(36756003)(8936002)(81156014)(6246003)(53936002)(83716004)(7736002)(186003)(54896002)(6512007)(71200400001)(6306002)(256004)(76176011)(73956011)(71190400001)(229853002)(2906002)(446003)(478600001)(14454004)(99286004)(68736007)(6116002)(53546011)(3846002)(316002)(11346002)(14444005)(2616005)(110136005)(5660300002)(966005)(476003)(102836004)(236005)(66066001)(6506007)(66946007)(76116006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2307; H:BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: XZHobyJ3p3rb4OYbhTUF32NSU0nBhwtu6mmju5VlM+0nIAiMMQkyKVkdFMHLoYvctFHBqggiENRK5TXhUG3nxbk+O+K3VSOV6uZjNTp8BVmNKweG4jjOBOwtpocwJdb0xf9Tv/inICmn2kK5LlvGANn13UA/2iBRAxyq+V9E8H1SVDVlvWngFm11U5uw/OxfQrbXqq0WEC9h5EJgVqcTF9k+h9Nz1U0ZUbfrPaR7Cwq+uOeSF1lmd9e6EEFlj9MTM8gEjjeaQ5uo9lZQhy41uNYrLb8oD2+BlMXvsGrU6frdDL6uHsc5gvduWNVgRd+aJYrh2uCy/fWylq5sehB3CU2ZzGEvqwCXJl7mkA1bhI/aA4uvgxtsSs75PSeBTOivEePG9NJGuBUWX8qfkHDLfwG34Qg8EwXhC82jknOMQ88=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D7669A31BBC04212AA3A8402C51B5806ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b8ea2c7c-605a-4d81-41b9-08d6c4b3f6a1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Apr 2019 10:44:13.0433 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1101MB2307
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u4U1RtyDPfLihRPfF48d5EgPJ0s>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call
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, 19 Apr 2019 10:44:29 -0000

Support. In the future, we’re going to combine BGP-LS for simple extensions like this in the IGP drafts defining the extensions.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:40 PM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

support as co-author
+1 Ketan

Cheers,
Jeff
On Apr 18, 2019, 8:27 AM -0700, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>, wrote:

Support as co-author.


1.    Does adding the announcement of seamless S-BFD descriptors via BGP LS address family benefit network provisioning?
This is not really part of network provisioning as much as distribution of the SBFD discriminators that are flooded within IGP area/level to centralized controllers so that they can be leveraged for SBFD verification of paths across multi-domain/AS (under a single admin domain)


2.    Is it important to keep the same BGP-ls information in OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP regarding S-BFD discriminators?
I did not quite follow this question.


3.    Is this document mature enough for WG Adoption?
Yes. It is simple extension – like many others in BGP-LS for defining new TLV corresponding to IGP specs. The concerned IGP specs are now rfc7884 and rfc7883 – so definitely quite mature.


4.    Are there any issues that the WG should consider to help quicken the pace of the adoption?
SBFD is getting wider use due to it’s simplicity and lightweight procedures. This extension in BGP-LS enables controllers to learn SBFD discriminators for running verifications across domains. So faster adoption would help development of those use-cases.


5.    Do you know of planned implementations?  If so, should is this document mature enough to receive early allocation for the BGP-LS code points.
Yes. Early allocation would be requested.

Thanks,
Ketan


From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 18 April 2019 19:55
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt.  You can access the document at:

https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/>

During your comments, please consider the following:


1.    Does adding the announcement of seamless S-BFD descriptors via BGP LS address family benefit network provisioning?

2.    Is it important to keep the same BGP-ls information in OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP regarding S-BFD discriminators?

3.    Is this document mature enough for WG Adoption?

4.    Are there any issues that the WG should consider to help quicken the pace of the adoption?

5.    Do you know of planned implementations?  If so, should is this document mature enough to receive early allocation for the BGP-LS code points.

Remember that raising issues regarding document during WG adoption will help us speed this BGP-LS WG document toward WG LC.

Cheerily, Susan Hares
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email