IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 21 March 2022 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ketant.ietf@gmail.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 7558F3A0DCD for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 04:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 dX2Nbvtv9nW6 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 04:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92e.google.com (mail-ua1-x92e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D93C3A0D77 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 04:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92e.google.com with SMTP id b5so5621473uas.8 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 04:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6AfP7wBIm/NDx/+/Ay7CSKOKcUhxawpfkj3esdP0nwo=; b=QiUUhyU2xctzMulTcn7QbJLw0ZqSa+plL9JVyDoCOMYD3RWtKo8Zlh/RDF9z1cZDSa wpUQYuueyv5UqRumXywLfWvlkEbA0GetOSKDdTain9Bp+tQ5Dzz7oOtENR5ivnk/frsw ZLFN3viZOwsYXD6eKKWX1ZssYR33tYUJ5qE0UJshlZWHKJmuw7lwSFrELQM2jVSPXZOk BoZ/Qex/hVdvXFF4Wb+i5KhvlVCeV7urJZWGfpHWwe8vtYICOYUscmvzA/bLzXba+U8M xUkVYmw8nuqbD+wX0eIQFqoCU5C6n9p2/tT48WRgtTWl7eCQVyNiwe+WeNKLC7N6r1h8 QoEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6AfP7wBIm/NDx/+/Ay7CSKOKcUhxawpfkj3esdP0nwo=; b=gWhCtMKqkwejOScmyZU2qo1WNZhUx4vVFLr8K7TG6OZne9wYc8LdJFf8xOrAmWCOpf jcM0DMICMz4JCjpLBoePNQjaszQhAteLVYi2xrv6C+aupOcmjRJ1n6mgUN+EshCfl4lq zJsOk2BEszSEwDt36UMO9x3tWqjplmPL1deUA3hw6k4lbQv5ILI3yTGwFa+4K/JRFbC/ KrjvbRn3L6jQu63oNcQlpgPr4kRY+7Oti6Ta68QQar7IegT8SoU3BZ0+u4MP7SJoclG/ iis/KH3TDHxW0m2ByTc7Uchp6oX5odkXsA/i0X9RKJ+7dBjcqmi6vWRmdYib4OSQwWR2 iosg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533YjGzZeBfyOiArX8TTFBuWKyBvY+guyvOQrTBVYed9qurKJh5y GC2znwdxxg/GrftP15Z1ulha0iN8Sc7C0VUl5jz+fUOEoeA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcsEG8FwUUmeB9P6JeyKhwUfEzalnOCQ6Cv0fTqe99UGLZJGU/WPzLEzFpVuYhCA1/PYfmZ0PykjAgMEHusDE=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2048:0:b0:352:9b4f:ac98 with SMTP id 66-20020a9f2048000000b003529b4fac98mr6361432uam.12.1647861065970; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 04:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164774714961.16649.7874978579378917523@ietfa.amsl.com> <afa17ecf-3345-6756-637c-d4917861563b@joelhalpern.com> <CAH6gdPwgdvDo9oFFYef5B8OWwtrv=22RPW3cF1j2BLNo6+X1yw@mail.gmail.com> <270f23a8-6d29-28c5-1669-37029e908f59@joelhalpern.com> <CAH6gdPxdbUa1QAzhW8aYT8PBeHgNcatZGzhugswyPLhB146oCA@mail.gmail.com> <67a0923b-2e03-e7b7-ffad-9bab2d7606f8@joelhalpern.com> <CAH6gdPyH1SP26VG8jcv9A__nrDRnAHv7xTPP_hdyENKQ+9MLAQ@mail.gmail.com> <cfffc570-d002-71c1-f365-f0374474e944@joelhalpern.com> <CAH6gdPx90DojzfVhrE57Ri0wZm-e1YHBnd=SCQ8vYfdtEV560A@mail.gmail.com> <9d4cd776-f64b-9bcb-8804-c9d821755ea4@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d4cd776-f64b-9bcb-8804-c9d821755ea4@joelhalpern.com>
From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:40:54 +0530
Message-ID: <CAH6gdPyYwgXthq_PRaOXjfDZBORu7W_NRWwWPtfqVWkraGcoeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000079fa1b05dab88dfd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/bck96kPF7YAwoPuHcvLvOVwSVo4>
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: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:11:15 -0000

Hi Joel,

Please check inline below with KT2.


On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 4:08 PM Joel Halpern Direct <
jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> In line.
>
> On 3/21/2022 6:30 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > Please check inline below.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 2:19 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
> > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Okay, so for all cases where the argument length is non-zero, the
> >     receiver can use the advertisement only if they understand the
> behavior?
> >
> >
> > KT> Yes.
> >
> >
> >     What does it mean for the receiver to "use" the behavior when the
> >     argument length is zero?
> >
> >
> > KT> "Use" would be to put the SRv6 Service SID received from the egress
> > PE via BGP signaling as the IPv6 DA on the outer IPv6 encapsulation
> > introduced on the ingress PE and routing this encapsulated packet
> > towards the egress PE.
>
> that was the use I had understood was intended by the draft.  What I do
> not see is any way that the endpoint behavior (and / or the
> understanding or lack of understanding thereof) makes any difference.
>
> >
> >     What can the receiver do differently based on
> >     understanding the endpoint behavior?
> >
> >
> > KT> The draft does not specify anything in this regard.
>
> I was prompted to ask this by wondering,, if the behavior could matter,
> if the receiver did not understand the behavior, how could it know there
> was a problem.  If this is strictly tied to the argument length being
> non-zero, then I can at least understand it.
>

KT2> The use of the arguments is the main thing when it comes to
interoperability. Otherwise, the actual processing of the SRv6 SID behavior
definition is actually happening only at the egress PE that owns and has
instantiated that SRv6 SID. Besides this, the info about the behavior can
be used for monitoring/troubleshooting.


>
> If there is some other case, then there appears to be a determinancy
> problem.   I suspect his could be resolved by having the sender only use
> a behavior other than 0xFFFF if the SID can only be used by an Ingress
> who understand the specified (non 0xFFF) behavior??
>

KT2> Yes, the use of opaque (0xFFFF) is allowed for such scenarios.

Thanks,
Ketan


>
> Yours,
> Joe;
>
> >
> >
> >     Yours,
> >     Joel
> >
> >     PS: By "transport" I was (sloppily, sorry) referring to the
> >     transposition mechanism, which seemed to be defined by the argument
> >     length, transposition offset, and the route type.  From what you say,
> >     that does not suffice to fill in the argument field.  If so, the
> >     exposition in the draft should be improved.
> >
> >
> > KT> The transposition scheme is limited to the BGP encoding alone and
> > not related to the rest of the functionality. Perhaps I am still not
> > getting your point here?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> >
> >     On 3/21/2022 4:41 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> >      > Hi Joel,
> >      >
> >      > Please check inline below.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 11:13 PM Joel Halpern Direct
> >      > <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
> >     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
> >     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>>> wrote:
> >      >
> >      >     I have reread the draft.  let me try asking the quesiton the
> >      >     opposite way.
> >      >
> >      >     1) If the argument length is zero, then an Ingress PE will
> always
> >      >     ignore
> >      >     the SRv6 Endpoint behavior, as it will not do anything
> >     differently
> >      >     if it
> >      >     understands or does not understand the behavior.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > KT> The draft does not say that the behavior is to be ignored. It
> >     says
> >      > that ingress PE can still use such behaviors even if they are
> >      > unknown/unsupported.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >     2) If the argument length is non-zero, but it is being filled
> >     in by the
> >      >     transportion mechanism, then again the Ingress PE might as
> >     well ignore
> >      >     the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior Information
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > KT> RFC8986 does not talk about any behavior where the argument is
> >      > filled by the transport mechanism. Neither does this draft.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >     3) If other information such as the use of the MPLS ESI or
> >     label (EVPN
> >      >     Auto-Discovery) is used to fill in the argument, this is
> >     determined
> >      >     from
> >      >     the type information and not from the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior?
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > KT> Just the route type information is not sufficient and
> >     understanding
> >      > of the behavior is also required before it can be used.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >     4) If none of those cases apply, and the SRv6 Endpoint
> >     Behavior is
> >      >     known
> >      >     by the Ingress PE, and that behavior reuries other
> >     manipulation of the
> >      >     argument field of the resulting SID, then the Ingress PE acts
> >     on that
> >      >     information?  And the advertiser has to somehow ensure that
> all
> >      >     receivers will correctly understand the necessary
> manipulation?
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >     It seems that carrying the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior, and trying
> to
> >      >     describe when it needs to be understood, is for a use case
> >     that is not
> >      >     even covered in the document?
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > KT> I am not sure that I understand the above two paragraphs very
> >     well.
> >      > For any behavior where arguments are used, the
> >     understanding/support for
> >      > the behavior is required at the ingress PE - to set the argument
> >     part of
> >      > the SID before sending the packets towards the egress PE. Where
> >      > arguments are not used, the SID can be used, as signaled, by the
> >     ingress
> >      > PE even if it does not understand the behavior.
> >      >
> >      > Thanks,
> >      > Ketan
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >     Yours,
> >      >     Joel
> >      >
> >      >     On 3/20/2022 2:54 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> >      >      > Hi Joel,
> >      >      >
> >      >      > Please see inline below.
> >      >      >
> >      >      > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 11:34 AM Joel M. Halpern
> >      >     <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
> >      >      > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>> wrote:
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     I seem to be missing something.
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     The ingress PE (domain edge) applies the destination
> SID
> >      >     (possibly as
> >      >      >     part of a SID list).  Either it is deciding to use the
> >      >     destination SID,
> >      >      >     or something else is deciding to use the destination
> SID.
> >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      > KT> The ingress PE is deciding. Something else (e.g., a
> >      >     controller) may
> >      >      > decide the path (e.g., SID list for SR Policy) but the
> >     Service/VPN
> >      >      > context is signaled via BGP from egress to ingress PE.
> >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     Ignoring the issue of argument manipulation, if the
> >     Ingress PE is
> >      >      >     deciding on its own, doesn't it have to understand the
> >      >     meaning of the
> >      >      >     behavior in order to decide that it wants to invoke it?
> >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      > KT> The ingress PE is not invoking anything and hence it
> >     doesn't
> >      >     need to
> >      >      > understand the meaning of the behavior (with some
> >     exceptions like
> >      >     when
> >      >      > it needs to supply the argument). Ingress PE is simply
> >     setting the
> >      >      > received SRv6 Service SID as the IPv6 DA in the outer
> >     encapsulation
> >      >      > (let's keep aside SR Policy for now). When this packet
> >     reaches the
> >      >      > egress PE, it ends up invoking the behavior corresponding
> >     to the
> >      >     locally
> >      >      > instantiated SRv6 SID on the egress PE. As an analogy -
> >     whether the
> >      >      > label signaled by the egres PE is per-VRF or per-CE does
> not
> >      >     affect the
> >      >      > processing at ingress PE.
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     If something else provides the SID list and the rules
> for
> >      >     which traffic
> >      >      >     should use it (e.g. the SR policy or similar) then the
> >      >     Ingress PE would
> >      >      >     not seem to need such understanding.
> >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      > KT> The situation is the same even in this case.
> >      >      >
> >      >      > Thanks,
> >      >      > Ketan
> >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     Yours,
> >      >      >     Joel
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     On 3/20/2022 1:37 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> >      >      >      > Hi Joel,
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      > There is no implicit assumption such as the one you
> >     refer
> >      >     to. The
> >      >      >      > ingress PE does not need to do anything specific
> >     with the
> >      >     choice
> >      >      >     of the
> >      >      >      > behavior picked by the egress PE except where the
> >     behavior
> >      >      >     involves the
> >      >      >      > use of argument. Ingress PE does need to know &
> support
> >      >     the specific
> >      >      >      > behavior when it needs to supply the argument based
> >     on the
> >      >     behavior
> >      >      >      > definition.
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      > Thanks,
> >      >      >      > Ketan
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 10:56 AM Joel M. Halpern
> >      >      >     <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
> >      >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
> >      >      >      > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
> >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
> >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
> >      >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>>> wrote:
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      >     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
> >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> >      >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
> >      >      >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> >      >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>>
> >      >      >      >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> >      >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
> >      >      >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> >      >     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >     <mailto: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/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/>
> >      >
> >       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/>>
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/>
> >      >
> >       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/>>>
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/>
> >      >
> >       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/>>
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/>
> >      >
> >       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
> >     <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
> >     <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13>
> >      >
> >       <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13>>
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >       <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13> <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13>>>
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >       <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13> <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13>> <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13> <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> 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
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13>
> >      >
> >       <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13>>
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >       <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13> <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13>>>
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >       <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13> <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13>> <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13> <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13 <
> 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
> >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>
> >      >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>>
> >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>
> >      >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> >>>
> >      >      >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org> <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>>
> >      >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>
> >     <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>>>>
> >      >      >      >      >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>
> >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>>
> >      >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>
> >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>>>
> >      >      >      >
> >       <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>
> >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>>
> >      >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>
> >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>>>>
> >      >      >      >      > Internet-Draft directories:
> >      >      > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html> <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>>
> >      >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html> <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>>>
> >      >      >      >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>
> >      >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>>
> >      >      >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>
> >      >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>>>>
> >      >      >      >      > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>
> >      >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>>
> >      >      >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>
> >      >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>>>
> >      >      >      >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>
> >      >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>>
> >      >      >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>
> >      >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>>>>
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      >     _______________________________________________
> >      >      >      >     BESS mailing list
> >      >      >      > BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
> >     <mailto:BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org>> <mailto:BESS@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
> >      >     <mailto:BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org>>>
> >     <mailto:BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org> <mailto:BESS@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:BESS@ietf.org>>
> >      >      >     <mailto:BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
> >     <mailto:BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org>>>>
> >      >      >      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>
> >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>>
> >      >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>
> >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>>>
> >      >      >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>
> >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>>
> >      >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>
> >      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>>>>
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email