Dear WG chairs and all, Following discussions in IDR (including feedback from the IDR chairs), we would like to seek input from SPRING on the requirement and direction for SR Policy state reporting. We observe that there is currently no standard mechanism to report SR Policy operational state (Policy / Candidate Path / Segment List) from headend nodes to a controller in a structured and hierarchical manner. Existing approaches (e.g., BGP-LS, YANG) either require additional protocol mechanisms or do not align well with SR Policy constructs. In particular, they may require controllers to establish additional sessions (e.g., YANG) with headend nodes. To address this, we are working on a draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-sr-policy-state-report/ . The draft extends BGP SR Policy (as defined in RFC 9830) to carry state information, allowing both policy provisioning and state reporting within the same framework, thereby reducing protocol overhead and simplifying operations. Before proceeding further, we would like to confirm: 1. Is such a requirement considered valid in SPRING? 2. Is extending BGP SR Policy an appropriate direction for this problem? The authors and the IDR WG chairs would greatly appreciate feedback and guidance from the SPRING WG. Any additional comments are also very welcome. Best regards, Liyan Song
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
