[Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1)

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, Sue: I have replied Les’s concern at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/MnJoprNHwWuLTRrZc0C1C23zDL4/. And, to Les:  Does the reply in the above mail address your concerns? If not, please state the remaining issues. If it addresses your concerns, would you like to confirm? Aijun Wang China Telecom On May 28, 2026, at 03:07, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote:  Les:   Thank you for your excellent review of the document.  This is an inconsistency, and the authors must address it before we proceed.   As you mention: -----------------------------   - One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Router-ID of the ASBR using TLV 1028    and/or 1029 [RFC9552], depending on whether the ASBR is configured    with one or both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs.  (Note: while    [RFC9552] introduced these TLVs for use in the BGP-LS attribute, this    document also leverages the same TLVs for use in the NLRI.)   The authors should take this offline and resolve this with me.  I will come back with an answer to LSR.  This draft will be held up while this point is resolved.   Sue   From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:39 PM To: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; idr-chairs <idr-cha...@ietf.org>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1)   Sue –   Section 5 mandates that TLVs 1028/1029 be present. Section 8 says in the case of BGP/Static everything is as defined in Section 5 except for the protocol ID.   I am just trying to resolve the two. ??       Les   From: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:11 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; idr-chairs <idr-cha...@ietf.org>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1)   Les:   #1 section 5 – the BGP-LS speaker is a BGP peer of the Controller.  The BGP-LS speaker has either a directly connected interface with Inter-AS link or a static route (via a local interface) to the remote AS peer.   Section 8 was written to clarify that this BGP peer (e.g. SB2)  is source for the information. #2 – good catch.   The inter-AS link is SB1-TB2.  (I missed that one!)   Sue   From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:11 PM To: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; idr-chairs <idr-cha...@ietf.org>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1)   I wholeheartedly agree with Acee's points.   It isn’t completely clear to me why the new Section 8 was written - as opposed to updating the existing Section 5. But if the authors/WG are OK with this presentation I won’t object - but two review points:   1)Section 5 states:   "The following Sub-TLVs MUST be included as the Local Node Descriptors:   ... - One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Router-ID of the ASBR using TLV 1028 and/or 1029 [RFC9552], depending on whether the ASBR is configured with one or both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs. (Note: while [RFC9552] introduced these TLVs for use in the BGP-LS attribute, this document also leverages the same TLVs for use in the NLRI.)”     It isn't clear to me from looking at RFC 9086 where this information comes from in the case of “direct/static” as RFC 9086 specifies only TLV 516 for BGP Router  ID.   2)Section 8 states:   “Alignment between the two sides of the Inter-AS link (e.g. SB1 – TB1) …”   I assume “TB1” is meant to be “TB2” as there is no node “TB1” in the diagram.      Les   >-----Original Message----- >From: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> >Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:12 AM >To: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Ketan Talaulikar ><ketant.i...@gmail.com> >Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; idr-chairs <idr-cha...@ietf.org>; Dongjie (Jimmy) ><jie.d...@huawei.com> >Subject: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- >inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) >  >Aijun and Ketan: >  >Acee (lsr co-chair) would like to confirm that section 8 and section 9 avoid the >issues from LSR discussion on the IGP Stub-links draft?  Would you please >respond to this email with your answer. >  >Thanks, >Sue >  >  >-----Original Message----- >From: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> >Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:59 PM >To: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> >Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; idr-chairs <idr-cha...@ietf.org>; Dongjie (Jimmy) ><jie.d...@huawei.com>; Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- >inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) >  >Hi Sue, >  >> On May 26, 2026, at 12:39 PM, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote: >>  >> Acee: >>  >> If the data comes from IGP (OSPF and ISIS), the answer is yes. >>  >> However, section 8 allows for an Inter-AS link information from a BGP peer >(BGP-LS from BGP only) to set the source on the inter-AS links as either static or >"directly" connected.  Please review sections 8 and 9. >>  >> Do these two sections provide enough detail to avoid the issues from the IGP >Stub-links draft? >  >I would think so and if the information were to advertised in OSPF or IS-IS, the >existing TE encodings would be used. >  >However, this is a good question for the authors. We don't want to rehash >these stub-links drafts under any circumstances. >  >Thanks, >Acee >  >  >  >>  >> Sue >>  >>  >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Acee Lindem <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- >3A__acee.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf- >v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J- >sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=XHwqK- >Drj7w7cMqyDXZKjxlLfGXjGTxx3T-UuL-yCsQ&e=> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:32 PM >> To: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> >> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; idr-chairs <idr-cha...@ietf.org>; Dongjie (Jimmy) ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong- >40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf- >v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J- >sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n- >3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zf >MaEE&e=>; Ketan Talaulikar ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf- >40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf- >v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J- >sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n- >3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYs >Hs&e=> >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- >inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) >>  >> Speaking as both WG chair and WG member: >>  >> I don't have a problem with this draft as long as RFC 5392 (OSPF) and RFC >9346 (IS-IS) are used as the source of the BGP-LS inter-AS topo information. >We don't have time in LSR to rehash the IGP stub-links drafts just because IDR is >advancing this document. >>  >> Thanks, >> Acee >>  >>> On May 26, 2026, at 8:45 AM, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote: >>>  >>> Greetings LSR: >>> IDR has reached consensus to publish draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology- >ext-32. >>> This draft defines a new type within the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability >Information (NLRI) for an Inter-AS Link, as well as three new type-length-values >(TLVs) for the BGP-LS Inter-AS Link descriptor.   It allows the following two types >of use cases: 1) IGP (ospf or isis)  to BGP-LS and 2) BGP-only (import data from >static/direct interfaces) to BGP-LS). >>> Please respond to this message if you object to the publication of the draft. >Otherwise, the IDR chairs will forward this to the IESG for publication on >6/1/2026. >>> Cheerily, Sue Hares >>> Shepherd >>> IDR  co-chair    _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org >>  >>  >  >_______________________________________________ >Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org >To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org