IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

allan michael <michaelallenietf@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2024 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <michaelallenietf@gmail.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 F1F23C14F6B4; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:50:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.005
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EnscV8B-rCRc; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb36.google.com (mail-yb1-xb36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b36]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 531C5C14F5F9; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb36.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dcbf82cdf05so5948566276.2; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:50:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708429828; x=1709034628; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NclsQWu3rzThj5x8ToGouYYpPfA41+hQm+aPM8licSE=; b=BpliHE1e6sz88YiPx3hQnLBN9pxg3eeVb3/F4Q0OFXgYaFGoslUAPKR6YqVYQTF132 B3ZuAIDk3W3q7Ce9td89/qMc63hFvxz/Cod1LexlK37KK/JjU6THwf2j2PKUuHSXYlHY FwKKnJORIVcMeO35I53critCC7oTpjsZ9gc2LMRvPH58Wld8QrXy6cHza/r+nSWq/Xkn oaFuqOnZaEjhd40v9RxTvm7NVFOBuZJ/RFbYwQ5RyyQ7QpxmdEzigv0Ay1YDsqBpxaGW +irCuVzkt6oaXQaJoMx0ZODR/cyiT9irt4aXTE8B/NGq05/HRASLRB4H/GjbQ8nLqvhO WWeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708429828; x=1709034628; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NclsQWu3rzThj5x8ToGouYYpPfA41+hQm+aPM8licSE=; b=bOKgyUsBJUBqLq++oSmHi1C6Xvjbaly4MC+HbC/Dd9Vs+ql3QGmmfXtG2/PhdDL6Z3 Rzim5MFcJCCKoLIQb0yfST5k7DBj/MX209AIKF3sf3DSKpsJyD27Begy20gW7OhJH2O2 ItlLmMn2Xsl7olUWURLOtmGo3axe2w0EZ1JeLGO1qeAaQ03jtt/jR+lqh3qJyWRjWWjN o1fd9xbQl7EK41ZXypoRXhl0KnP7GUqdzW/Uvdei33opTxQFgJy49qGT4JIzrsuSznO0 HS3hD1JV0sVgSijTAE9uGKB97JE5EbSibduswgkUMKahfwMYSq8PtIO3F0f5VGTcIsIc E0Qw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUiMVbY+1M3zG/sNUSU3SaxyJ4gE5++wkRaxE6WjFFOA+oqVCMa1rYx1v6WvdvOGc7c3anCRVJFmTLNdZLkWbTLGyz5IUFbx60/3QOAEmDPCnktc7dk7o1i/00bYWN7ZDIq6WTizRfa0ugKpmvXRJiK98J6DJshH5G8ZROe2mn9pXBIlxTQ/K1+m3UYVR4AY6n3N3E=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy2rQ+iXKZolHfOeGFQ2X43Mrfw6x0/DwwVzpqa1kiWuqrU8Vhm GW4IgAwGv4mnoOUlObtU9T0+X65stiRU2RNBw2qXbp+cuZt2psq1Z4Sus5DcroE9hjnEA01mhvD 4MaW+SdhwtIiYQ+deGeLt2mAQ8jD0lTIhVfIajg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGypTxzQbm2M4fwkHz7Tldx7CBSvUpZS6dEz2Qp9FIbFaSM4MZgZvUu8uuW0R8ZWf9sJNNec70mu8nLTR9aTvQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d695:0:b0:dcc:d694:b4a6 with SMTP id n143-20020a25d695000000b00dccd694b4a6mr16107720ybg.15.1708429827790; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:50:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: allan michael <michaelallenietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 19:50:14 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJsZG2TjAaRL0VUNu=KLccyQ4RoxanCDN0PsB6QS+ttqDoH+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000025cb30611ced1d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/IcCJl5XeZgwjE3Qh2KoWvKXzmyE>
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:50:30 -0000

Hi WG,

I support this adoption.

Here are my answers to the questions:

1. Yes. 2. The solutions mentioned in this draft [
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection
<http://ietf.org%29%3Chttps//datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection/%3E>]are
simpler and can be more easily deployed in existing networks. By leveraging
programmable source routing techniques to include backup SIDs for egress
nodes, efficient egress protection can be achieved.




Thanks,
Allen

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>
<&lt;rtgwg@ietf.org&gt;>; spring@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs
<rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org> <&lt;rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org&gt;>;
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection
<draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection@ietf.org>
<&lt;draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection@ietf.org&gt;>
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/>
<http://ietf.org%29%3Chttps//datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection/%3E>
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/>
<http://protection%3Chttps//datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection/%3E>
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