Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 20 March 2022 05:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 1A67A3A0B42 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 YbH_3wvdyA6A for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDE3E3A0B3E for <bess@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KLmRt1zPjz6GcKt for <bess@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1647753946; bh=p9I3I8EQG7GamF1Ozz69UMZug/tL0BYB4azYkXqGfwA=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=lHxU2SDOvMYJ4i0F2LC9FeFcI4F2lbelnwMtZt99pD0RXrw9Gw3KHI3T43K4k0+U6 RlWhF1LZjkwKOlohp0LURsQnJdIY2hzQqEZ9EnX/B6WIXFSObSGnaXo9mCqNyKCYS/ FEa+i9D5wLBzYtM229TZZ4fUM/rMCixWpsrNO7AE=
X-Quarantine-ID: <EqoF76Ylq5dz>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.21.218] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4KLmRs6GFQz6GZGR for <bess@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <afa17ecf-3345-6756-637c-d4917861563b@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 01:25:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: bess@ietf.org
References: <164774714961.16649.7874978579378917523@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <164774714961.16649.7874978579378917523@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/8M8JdKQTT9XSn9NrgKasMvpJsA4>
Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13.txt
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: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 05:25:51 -0000

I keep reading the description of the handling of unknown endpoint 
behaviors.

It seems there is an implicit assumption that I would think it would be 
helpful to make explicit.  As far as I can tell, a head end would never 
choose based purely based on local policy to make use of an advertised 
SID with an unknown behavior?  However, a head end might use such a ISD, 
without knowing what it was really asking, if so instructed by a policy 
engine (e.g. SR Policy)?

Yours,
Joel

On 3/19/2022 11:32 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.
> 
>          Title           : SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
>          Authors         : Gaurav Dawra
>                            Clarence Filsfils
>                            Ketan Talaulikar
>                            Robert Raszuk
>                            Bruno Decraene
>                            Shunwan Zhuang
>                            Jorge Rabadan
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13.txt
> 	Pages           : 34
> 	Date            : 2022-03-19
> 
> Abstract:
>     This document defines procedures and messages for SRv6-based BGP
>     services including L3VPN, EVPN, and Internet services.  It builds on
>     RFC4364 "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" and RFC7432
>     "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN".
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
> 
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt