[Isis-wg] 答复: WG acceptance for draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Thu, 06 March 2014 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB491A02E2; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 03:11:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.202
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Epf28a7IRBHr; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 03:11:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5D61A02DA; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 03:11:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEH32204; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:11:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:10:42 +0000
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:11:16 +0000
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.224]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:11:13 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG acceptance for draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05
Thread-Index: AQHPOHDPMIkAAIhZQEu9csMxfWmTOJrT5s5i
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:11:13 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D081FE262@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <BB1F64CC-8394-4C33-976D-B68FA58967A1@juniper.net>, <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23D038A4@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23D038A4@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.119.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/3dO8M9OvEGshSn9GXOtUsHo-Ofo
Cc: "draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@rawdofmt.org>
Subject: [Isis-wg] 答复: WG acceptance for draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:11:54 -0000

Hi, 

I wonder if it is too early to ask for WG acceptence for draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05.
1. From the point of standardization view
1) We all know draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05 is not an independent draft. There is still doubt about the scalability issue and future deployment of segment routing. Even if it can be ignored, when focus on the SR's own solutions, There is still much discussion about the usecase and architecture on segment routing. Even the important drafts draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing are still in RTGWG WG instead of SPRING WG.
2) According to draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing, there are  IGP-Prefix Segment/IGP-Node Segment/IGP-Anycast Segment/IGP-Adjacency Segment. There seems to be service segment in the future version. In draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions, it seems not all these segments are covered. On the other hand, there is much description about ERO TLV in draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions while the ERO/Backup ERO is not explictly mentioned in draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing. I doubt all the inconsistency can be matched automatically.

2. From the point of MPLS view
As claimed in the draft
"
SR's
   control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and
   do not require any additional signaling (other than the regular IGP).
   For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not require any
   LDP or RSVP-TE signaling.
",
if ISIS for segment routing is thought as a good replacement for LDP or RSVP-TE, I recommend please refer to RFC5036(LDP Specification) which, I think, is an excellent example on how to define a good label distribution protocol. In ISIS extensions, I cannot see enough description on protocol procedures. I may understand the label mapping for prefix/adjacency, but regarding label withdraw/release or possible error process, I doubt all these precedures could be self-explained. 

3. From the point of Implementation view
As an engineer, I understand the draft on protocol extensions should be regarded as the detailed design to be used as a good guidance for the implementation and interoperability test. Until now, it seems the scope is conflicted and the precedures are not detailed enough for draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05. As to the implementation and incoming interoperation test claimed, I have much doubt. Maybe it can work, it should be refleced in the draft firstly, but not be accepted firstly.

Regards,
Zhenbin(Robin) Li


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Gredler
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:35 AM
> To: isis-wg@ietf.org list
> Cc: draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; Christian
> Hopps
> Subject: [Isis-wg] WG acceptance for draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-
> extensions-05
>
> hi,
>
> the authors of draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions are asking
> for acceptance as a WG item.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05
>
> please provide feedback, (support/opposition) up until March 19th 2014 (2
> weeks).
>
> thanks,
>
> /hannes & chris
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg