IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt [4/18 - 5/2/2019] - 2 week WG adoption call

"Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)" <guyunan@huawei.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <guyunan@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 1D4B4120272 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 19:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 hTEmOrGmDkBx for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 19:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A85D120277 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 19:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0C1CA812F7AC602F3FF8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 03:34:38 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 9 May 2019 03:34:37 +0100
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 9 May 2019 03:34:37 +0100
Received: from DGGEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.49) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 9 May 2019 03:34:37 +0100
Received: from DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.13]) by dggeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 9 May 2019 10:34:30 +0800
From: "Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)" <guyunan@huawei.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt [4/18 - 5/2/2019] - 2 week WG adoption call
Thread-Index: AdT17jAMyz+sjMM6SRqyoxzf6xKAMQOlnl9wAGGYuhA=
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 02:34:30 +0000
Message-ID: <C01B0098369B2D4391851938DA6700B7134E59B3@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <013301d4f5ef$b1b51310$151f3930$@ndzh.com> <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5B84285@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5B84285@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.184.132]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C01B0098369B2D4391851938DA6700B7134E59B3DGGEML532MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yOwU975QgLF1NAI0wFYM88DXWpg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt [4/18 - 5/2/2019] - 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: Thu, 09 May 2019 02:34:45 -0000

Hi all,

Speaking from the vendor perspective, we have received requirements from clients, who have concerns regarding the YANG standardization process, asking for alternative solutions such as BGP and PCEP. And we also have clients who want BGP only. Thus, using either BGP-LS or BGP for SID provisioning is worth discussion.

BGP, as its current state, might be not as mature as PCEP regarding SID management. However, necessary augmented works to BGP can be done, and can serve as a workable way.


Yunan


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 10:05 PM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt [4/18 - 5/2/2019] - 2 week WG adoption call

This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call for draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-02.txt.  You can access the draft at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext/

In your comments, consider:


1)      Does this draft mechanisms for  extending BGP-LS to provide IDs for allocation provide a beneficial addition to BGP mechanisms for segment routing?

2)      Is the mechanism well-formed enough to adopted as a WG draft?

3)      Do you see any problems with using these IDs for flow redirection?

4)      Do you support extending BGP-LS?

5)      Should we provide an early allocation for this technology?

6)      Do you know of any early implementations?

By answering these questions during WG Adoption call, you will help John and I determine what issues need to be considered prior to finalizing this WG draft.    Your answer will help us increase the speed of processing BGP-LS drafts.

If enough people indicate that they wish an early allocation upon adoption, I will then send this early allocation to Alvaro.

Sue Hares

PS - I'm trying new methods of WG adoption calls to help speed up the process in IDR WG.   Please send any thoughts on these new methods to me or John.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email