Hi Acee and Jeff,
Thanks for the comments!
The next step is to take the problem statement to 6MAN following Alvaro's
suggestions. Once there's a consensus on the AHL problem in 6MAN, we can focus
on promoting the protocol extensions in LSR.
A new MSD type seems to be the most direct way, but it may cause some confusion
since the name and content are not completely consistent. Will work on this and
see how to reach a consensus.
Yao
Original
From: JeffTantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com>;
Cc: 刘尧00165286;Éric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com>;alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com
<alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>;spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年08月06日 01:58
Subject: [spring] Re: following-up discussion on
draft-liu-spring-aggregate-header-limit-problem
Second what Acee said, and the name indeed could have been better (it seemed
fine when we started working on MSD). We already have a framework that spans
both IGPs and BGP-LS, defining a new MSD would be a more pragmatic approach.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 2, 2024, at 06:57, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
Speaking as an LSR WG Member:
On Aug 1, 2024, at 20:35, <liu.ya...@zte.com.cn> <liu.ya...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
Hi Eric, Jeff and Sasha,
Thank you all for the interest and comments on
draft-liu-spring-aggregate-header-limit-problem during the presentation on last
week's SPRING meeting.
Here're the following-up responses to the comments and some related information
on this work.
Comments from Eric:
Refering to RFC9098 instead of RFC8883 on aggregate header limit.
Response:
We've checked RFC9098 after the meeting, but haven't found any formal
description on aggregate header limit. So we still have to refer to RFC8883
when it comes to the definition of aggregate header limit. But RFC9098 provides
some detailed information on intermediate systems processing Layer 4
information, in this case it needs process the entire IPv6 header chain as
well. We'll add RFC9098 as a reference for this scenario.
Comments from Jeff&Sasha:
MSD(IGP/BGP/YANG) has provided a mechanism for node's processing limit info
advertisement and collection, and it is well defined, a new MSD type for AHL or
similar mechanism can meet the requirement.
Response:
In fact, we've already written a draft draft-liu-lsr-aggregate-header-limit,
and the basic idea is defining a new MSD type so the existing mechanism for MSD
can all be leveraged.
It has been discussed on the LSR list and presented in LSR IETF119, but the
objection of this approach is that, AHL is a none-routing info, it should not
be advertised along with the route advertisement like MSD(although MSD already
did that). A suggestion is to leverage the non-routing information signaling
mechanism in IGP (draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance, RFC6823) for AHL
advertisement.
I know this was said at the WG meeting but I disagree. We already have MSD
signaling in the IGPs and this would be yet another MSD type. Also, I could
imagine use cases where it is used for route selection similar to the other MSD
types. The reason (other than our backlog of drafts) that we didn’t do an LSR
adopt call was due to the lack of precise definition of AHL as well as the
intended use cases.
Thanks,
Acee
You can find the discussion around the this draft in the lsr minutes
[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-119-lsr-202403210300/#signaling-aggregate-header-size-limit-via-igp]
and the chatlog
[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/chatlog-119-lsr-202403211300/] on IETF119.
Thanks,
Yao
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
