IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022）

chen.ran@zte.com.cn Sat, 27 August 2022 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
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 2C28AC14CF14 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.998, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aVzn9VyrjfnI for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CFEFC14F722 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4MDyFm2hnbz8R039 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:27:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4MDyFB09T1z501SW; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:26:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 27R0Qn3K074445; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:26:49 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:26:49 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:26:49 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc630964c91ebcd943
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202208270826499148735@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB487272B6440945C76FACC0D8B36A9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: BYAPR08MB487272B6440945C76FACC0D8B36A9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 27R0Qn3K074445
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 630964EC.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1661560044/4MDyFm2hnbz8R039/630964EC.000/192.168.251.13/[192.168.251.13]/mxct.zte.com.cn/<chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 630964EC.000/4MDyFm2hnbz8R039
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/x-yh7wmjRn3igeWn9uv9_URJ9Xk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022）
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 00:27:30 -0000

Hi Sue and WG,

I support the adoption of this draft.
The following three questions are responsed as follows:

1） Yes, I agree.
IMO，it is very reasonable to introduce action  bit[C]。

2）Yes, I agree.
This document is a great addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect, and two drafts solved the different problems  for different application scenarios.

3)Yes.
This feature is very important for SRv6 network deployment，and our router already implements this feature.

Best Regards，
Ran
------------------Original------------------
From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>;
Date: 2022年08月17日 22:59
Subject: [Idr] draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt - (8/17/2022 to 8/31/2022
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-07.txt
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/
During your discussion of this draft, please consider:
1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the
action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt
Figure 1 : Local Administrator
0                   1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Reserved           |C|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
C = 0 – redirect original flow
C = 1 – redirect copy of original flow
This bit augments the Redirect to IP action in RFC8955
And RFC8956.
2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature
in addition to  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/
See the following thread for a discussion of this in March:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HENTMEoiMJGmcMuVz7LTYclCSdw/
3) Will this work help deployment of SRv6 networks?
We’ll discuss this draft at the IDR interim on 8/29/2022.
Cheerily, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email