IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

梁艳荣 <liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn> Wed, 21 February 2024 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn>
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 D771AC14F6A9 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 04:31:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.006 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.1, 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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ruijie.com.cn
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 t4YsA0YSR_xb for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 04:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from va-2-34.ptr.blmpb.com (va-2-34.ptr.blmpb.com [209.127.231.34]) (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 ED68DC15108D for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 04:31:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=feishu2311081108; d=ruijie.com.cn; t=1708518701; h=from:subject: mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:reply-to:content-type: mime-version:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=Hm8A0Mbb8V58E8ikp+mdFTf9GjfUnW/yvY8gAMvaEl8=; b=FtpBn5xjrj/yHiw6LnVfKtQ96g1DR9n7UPzTmNVhNWgYc83Bz75h7DiyHzLQtQwECtPzkE 4/xT8ltQqfhH3Ef2JlBBUT99/DYx4MgneC3+ScEjeIfNbdrlejNIGy/98G1oYvGPBhEuPB ylgM/IDp3lG2amGgHYaiITpe0wNHgRgDGkfr4iAg6E3S+o6PKzNBcpBhTPpr7Dk8ZHlNpn 4TUrB8BzbPOry12G7FZCvR67cbCYQvoLUhy2PUauwkgqoSVwlAcDuwFyDr6znCZ9Od30ez jPjHchjnRkR4/F3EpmZjt2+rv9h533CYyxwi5xOGqc5o5nPCksCCe45auntBKg==
From: 梁艳荣 <liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Lms-Return-Path: <lba+165d5ed2c+6804e7+ietf.org+liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 20:31:39 +0800
Message-Id: <b9493115906f577da9239f0bd304ac13e2f14189.1fd30a3e.a332.4eb8.862a.e128a641950e@feishu.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5c516ce69315e0b5c1fb22d1e0f0ee7f497942ffb2d4bb790a76ca37d29a"
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 王恒1 <wangheng1@ruijie.com.cn>, 高鹏1 <gaop@ruijie.com.cn>, 苗青 <miaoqing@ruijie.com.cn>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/efW5n9S7fclaKcoqg3Kj8HVwr1U>
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: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:31:53 -0000

Hi Yingzhen & WG，

 I support the adoption of this draft.  [draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05] is easy to implement, and it's simple to deploy.
The replies to several questions are as follows: 
•  Do we need these different solutions?
 ----Yes. They are suitable for different scenarios.     
•  Technical merits and drawbacks of each solution.
    【draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16】: Requires control plane extension and Mirror SID extension, does not require ingress node awareness.
    【draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05】: 
      ----Drawbacks: Due to backup SID as SL [0], implementing this solution may affect the actual support capability of MSD (maximum SID depth), but this impact may be ignored when supporting SRH compression.           
      ----Merits: The backup egress PE is determined based on the routing optimization strategy and can be dynamically adjusted according to topology changes. So it's more flexible.
•  If there is any implementation of the proposals, please voice it.
    ----Ruijie Networks has completed a simple prototype verification of egress protection forwarding processes for draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05.

Best Wishes,
Yanrong

Original

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org><&lt;rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org&gt;> 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)%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