IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24)

Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com> Mon, 19 February 2024 01:50 UTC

Return-Path: <huzhibo@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170D1C14F5EF; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 17:50:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 rMvkNdq6Up-W; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 17:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 560CEC14F5E7; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 17:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TdQQH0xTXz6K90w; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:47:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.162.219]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B91A1400D9; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:50:51 +0800 (CST)
Received: from canpemm100009.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.213) by lhrpeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 01:50:50 +0000
Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.203) by canpemm100009.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:50:49 +0800
Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com ([7.192.105.203]) by canpemm500009.china.huawei.com ([7.192.105.203]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:50:48 +0800
From: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection <draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24)
Thread-Index: AQHaW47E9aYbBim5bEG1WOeRXvyjT7EQ7rwA
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 01:50:48 +0000
Message-ID: <5664f5b6a9bf46c2b5922739b5215fa3@huawei.com>
References: <CABY-gOMQ=LaECWJsJHsdKX7i+BUsiX=LF5b5ZPMVp=3qQjZ8Mg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABY-gOMQ=LaECWJsJHsdKX7i+BUsiX=LF5b5ZPMVp=3qQjZ8Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.202.45]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5664f5b6a9bf46c2b5922739b5215fa3huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/5onYWflZ4zanRkv9AQ5q6BqZ6CQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 01:50:59 -0000

Hi：

    As a co-author of this two deafts.

·              Do we need these different solutions?

----YES，draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16 manually plan active/standby and VPN protection relationships. Data packet needs to carry only one VPN SID. It is applicable to scenarios where CE multi-homing is normalized and easy to plan.

                          draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05 automatically calculates active/standby VPN protection relationships based on the primary and secondary VPN SIDs carried by the data plane. It is applicable to the scenario where the CE multi-homing relationship is complex.

·              Technical merits and drawbacks of each solution

         ---- draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16 features low SRv6 encapsulation overhead, but requires manual planning of SRv6 protection relationships.

                 Advantages of draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05: The SRv6 protection relationship is automatically generated. No manual planning is required.Disadvantages: An extra VPN SID needs to be encapsulated on the data plane.，SRv6 Best Effort scenario SRH encapsulation is required.
         I support the adoption of this draft as a co-author .



Thanks

Zhibo



From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 3:30 AM
To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection <draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24)


Hi,



This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft:

draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05 - SRv6 Egress Protection in Multi-homed scenario (ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection/>



Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by Feb 24th, 2024.

Please note that there is an existing WG document:draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16 - SRv6 Path Egress Protection<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection/> Which proposes fast protections for the egress node and link of an SRv6 path through extending IGP and using Mirror SID. As you discuss adopting draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection, please also consider:

·         Do we need these different solutions?

·         Technical merits and drawbacks of each solution

·         If there is any implementation of the proposals, please voice it.

Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft.

Also copying SPRING WG.

Thanks,

Yingzhen (RTGWG Co-chair)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email