Subject: [Idr] Re： WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

From: Yisong Liu<[email-masked]>
Date: 05 Nov 2020 11:13:22 +0800

Hi all

I support the adoption of this draft.

Thanks

Yisong

发件人: Susan Hares

时间: 2020/11/02(星期一)13:03

收件人: idr;

主题: [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?