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

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yubao,

Thanks for your feedback and we have clarified the use of the endpoint
behavior in the update posted earlier today to incorporate Alvaro's
suggestions.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:24 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Yubao,
>
> Sec 6.1.1 (Ethernet per-AD ES route ) does talk about the usage of the
> End.DT2M behavior. It does not talk about making the route invalid if it is
> carrying some other behavior.
>
> That said, will discuss with my co-authors regarding making the text
> clearer and get back to you.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:03 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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：*[e-mail];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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>