Re: [bess] [Idr] Review request for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11

wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn Mon, 07 March 2022 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236773A08AD; Sun, 6 Mar 2022 23:33:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qS10sudVDwTq; Sun, 6 Mar 2022 23:33:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927E73A08A5; Sun, 6 Mar 2022 23:33:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4KBqtr2Kdbz8PxDM; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:33:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4KBqtF4zWgzBGLrV; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:32:37 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 2277Ujua021437; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:30:45 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:30:45 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:30:45 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc6225b4a53ea5d5d6
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202203071530453168719@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAH6gdPzmJdWHxzJ14+yySechKU6URdxuVqEhGj+Rmo2FmuCq0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 202203031049546902275@zte.com.cn, CAH6gdPzmJdWHxzJ14+yySechKU6URdxuVqEhGj+Rmo2FmuCq0w@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn
To: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 2277Ujua021437
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 6225B534.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1646638388/4KBqtr2Kdbz8PxDM/6225B534.000/192.168.251.13/[192.168.251.13]/mxct.zte.com.cn/<wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6225B534.000/4KBqtr2Kdbz8PxDM
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/3QoI8LvCW8U50p1blCU-_i2N3GM>
Subject: Re: [bess] [Idr] Review request for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 07:33:18 -0000

Hi Ketan,






Thanks for your reply,


Please see inline below.






Thanks


Yubao














原始邮件



发件人:KetanTalaulikar
收件人:王玉保10045807;
抄送人:draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services@ietf.org;BESS;
日 期 :2022年03月04日 14:08
主 题 :Re: [bess] [Idr] Review request for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11




Hi Yubao,
Thanks for your email. Please check inline below.





On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:20 AM <wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn> wrote:




Hi authors,

 

   I reviewed this draft and  I don't understand this  sentence very well:  "The  SRv6 Endpoint behavior of the Service SID thus signaled is entirely up to the originator of the advertisement"



KT> Indeed. The egress PE is the one that picks the SRv6 SID to be signaled with the specific route. 



[Yubao 2] I mean the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior field of the SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV, I know the SID is picked by the originator,

                but I am not sure whether that behavior field should be set to "End.DT2M" or not,

                and I am not sure whether it will be considered to be invalid if that behavior field is set to other values.

    Is it saying that when PE1 receives an Ethernet A-D per ES route whose SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV's  SRv6 Endpoint Behavior field  is set to X (where X is not 0xFFFF),

   that Ethernet A-D per ES route should be indifferently processed by PE1 no matter what value will  X be set to?



KT> I am not sure of the draft text that you are referring to when drawing up this inference. For SRv6 SID behaviors that use arguments (e.g. Ethernet A-D per ES routes with behavior End.DT2M), it is necessary for the ingress PE to not be indifferent to the behavior since it needs to put the argument part correctly in the SRv6 SID used on the data path.  




[Yubao 2] If the ingress PE receives an Ethernet A-D per ES route whose SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV's  SRv6 Endpoint Behavior field  is set to 0x0508 (or any other unassigned values of RFC8986)

                But the IMET route it received carried a Behavior value of 'End.DT2M', 

                Will the ingress PE treat that Ethernet A-D per ES route as an invalid route?







   Is it necessary for the receiver-side processing of Ethernet A-D per ES route's Endpoint Behavior field to be clearly described?



KT> Sec 6.3 is where the egress PE processing and use of the ARG received via the Ethernet A-D per ES route with the SRv6 SID received along with Route Type 3 is described.



[Yubao 2] I think section 6.3 mainly says that the behavior field of IMET routes should be 'End.DT2M', 

                but it is not clear whether the behavior field of Ethernet A-D per ES route must be set to 'End.DT2M'.




Thanks,
Ketan
 


Thanks,


Yubao