Hi Authors, I believe this work is useful and should be taken up. It has value in providing the link MTU as part of the topology information via BGP-LS. However, as pointed out by others on this thread, the draft should remain scoped to just that – i.e. providing link MTU information. The discussion related to Path MTU and applicability to SR networks are best left outside the scope of this standards track draft.
Hi Sue, I would support the points made by Acee for not taking up this draft in IDR WG and instead doing this in LSR. Besides the missing coverage for OSPFv2/v3, there are also issues with how this would work with ISIS. The reference to the ISIS Trill specification points to this TLV https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7176#section-2.4 – if you see, there is more here than just the MTU value. What is more critical is the ISIS procedures (in non-Trill deployments) on how this value is determined. Please do not mix the following : The MTU sub-TLV is used to optionally announce the MTU of a link as specified in [RFC6325], Section 4.2.4.4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6325#section-4.2.4.4>. Are the authors trying to specify that these Trill procedures for testing MTU need to be adopted for regular ISIS deployments. My take is that while the ISIS TLV defined for Trill may be re-used in normal ISIS deployments, its usage and procedures need to be specified. Copying the LSR WG so that I may be corrected if I am wrong here. Coming to the point of BGP-only networks, the draft has zero text related to that scenario. Moreover, the procedures for BGP-LS advertisements in BGP only fabric need to be specified as a base. The https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric/ was my attempt to specify those procedures and it would be great if the IDR WG could review and provide feedback to this document and consider for adoption so we can cover the BGP-only networks. I would also like to offer support/help to the authors in adding the necessary OSPFv2/v3 support for the same in an LSR draft where we could tackle both the IGPs and BGP-LS encoding and procedures together. Thanks, Ketan From: Idr <idr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: 13 November 2020 00:20 To: 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; 'Stephane Litkowski (slitkows)' <slitkows=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org; 'Acee Lindem (acee)' <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) Jeff and Authors of draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu: I do believe the authors agreed to renaming the draft. Does the name: draft-xxx-idr-bgp-ls-link-mtu work for the authors and interested IDR participants. As the end of 12 days of the 14 day WG LC, this draft appears to have general consensus from the WG as a useful draft. I plan to allow 2 more days of comment, but at this point it appears the WG wishes to adopt this draft. Here’s my understanding of the best way forward: If LSR adopts a version of the draft, IDR will allow the LSR WG to be the main source as long as cross-working review occurs so the BGP-only function can be reviewed. Please continue to comment on the draft and the planned progression. Cheers, Sue From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 12:53 PM To: Susan Hares; Stephane Litkowski (slitkows); i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>; Acee Lindem (acee) Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) +1 to everything Acee said Cheers, Jeff On Nov 10, 2020, 1:01 PM -0800, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>, wrote: Speaking as an IDR WG member: The name of the draft is wrong – the extension is for a Link MTU and not a path MTU. Speaking as LSR Chair: We could this in LSR as there is currently no MTU advertisement in the LSAs for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Implementations already make use of this information as it is used in the OSPF DBD packets and for LSA packing. Of course, we’d require a more accurate draft name and title. Thanks, Acee From: Idr <idr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com<mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>> Date: Monday, November 9, 2020 at 4:20 PM To: "'Stephane Litkowski (slitkows)'" <slitkows=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:slitkows=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>, IDR List <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) Stephane: My second message to this thread asked a few questions about the technology. This information can be more than IGP information. If SR segments statically defined (static or direct interfaces) tunnels and pass the endpoints via BGP tunnel-encaps draft with SR Policy tunnel type, this can just be BGP. I’ll keep this WG adoption call going until we can be sure if: 1) it something LSR wants to standardize, and 2) whether there is a BGP only case. It is clear to me that standardizing MTU for a SR segments with stacked tunnel segments passed by BGP was useful. The authors should be the ones to propose this in LSR. Cheers, Sue From: Idr [mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 4:28 AM To: Susan Hares; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) Hi Sue, > The purpose behind this mechanism is to reduce administrative work rather > than to reduce the review on drafts. That’s exactly my point. If we don’t do OSPF extension now and in the same draft, we leave a gap that will require a new draft for a very very small extension. Just adds process overhead for nothing… Stephane From: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com<mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>> Sent: lundi 9 novembre 2020 10:10 To: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <slitk...@cisco.com<mailto:slitk...@cisco.com>>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) Stephane: I want to pick up on your email from two points: 1) Why not do everything in LSR? <WG-chair hat> If the feature comes with interest in doing all 3 (ISIS, OSPF, and BGP-LS data gathering), then the authors may select to do everything in LSR rather than have 2 or 3 drafts to maintain. This is optional and the mechanism may not fit every draft. The drafts may also start out adopted and vetted in LSR and IDR. The purpose behind this mechanism is to reduce administrative work rather than to reduce the review on drafts. </wg-chair hat off> 2) TRILL implementations of IS-IS has some MTU subTLV - If you are interested in whether this has been implemented in TRILL, you might want to check with Donald Eastlake. My vague and foggy recollection is that had some implementations or came from pre-TRILL implementations. Cheers, Susan Hares From: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) [mailto:slitk...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:03 AM To: Susan Hares; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) Hi, “a) Are there ways to pass IGP link MTUs in the IGPs? If so, is this needed in BGP-LS” This is a valid point, most of the time BGP-LS is feeded by IGP LSDBs (of course there are other ways too). While I see that IS-IS has some MTU subTLV coming from TRILL RFC7176 (possibly never been implemented), I don’t see anything for OSPF (I’m not an OSPF expert, so I may have missed it). Shouldn’t this be checked and validated with LSR WG before adopting ? Stephane From: Idr <idr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: lundi 2 novembre 2020 06:04 To: i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu-04.txt (11/1 – 11/16/2020). The authors should send in an IPR statement for this draft by 11/5 so the WG can include the IPR status in their decision. You can access the draft at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu/ Since this draft is reference by an existing IDR draft I’ve included a bit of background below to help you place this draft into the larger context of the SR additions to BGP-LS and the draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-19.txt. This draft does continue BGP-LS additions. if you are opposed to any BGP-LS additions rather than this specific addition, please make that clear in your comment in this discussion. The authors requested a WG adoption at IETF 108. The IDR co-chairs thank the authors for their patience. This draft has been delayed by process of having a new document shepherd (Sue Hares) come up to speed on draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encapsulation. Cheers, Sue Background =========== Segment Routing technology creates SR tunnels that are directly overlaid on MPLS or SRv6. While existing MPLS technology (LDP and RSV-TE) provides mechanisms to negotiate path MTU based on individual link MTU limits, the Segment Routing (SR) on BGP-LS Link Attribute does not pass information on MTU size per link. draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-02.txt sends PATH MTU information in the tunnel-encapsulation attribute for the tunnel type SR-Policy that handles segment routing (SR) paths. However, it lacks the information to create a reasonable Path size since the BGP-LS Link Attribute does distribute this information. The draft proposes adding a new sub-TLV for MTU size to the BGP-LS Link Attribute TLV, and draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-02.txt mentions this draft as one possible way to distribute the per link MTU. Questions for the authors might be: a) Are there ways to pass IGP link MTUs in the IGPs? If so, is this needed in BGP-LS b) What other mechanisms pass link MTU? _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
