Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-05 (7/27 to 8/27)

liu.yao71@zte.com.cn Mon, 23 August 2021 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <liu.yao71@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5720E3A1155 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 23:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 I2Yzb5LOgu-5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 23:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 B72053A1154 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 23:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id B1FE78D1C65B502FA363 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 14:51:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 9C3B6C021DB4449518CD; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 14:51:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 17N6pR7n054743; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 14:51:27 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from liu.yao71@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 14:51:27 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 14:51:27 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb6123456f9e4eeb12
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202108231451271427586@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 17N6pR7n054743
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/09378WcaLPA9tPUtcw-cGPyTiVI>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-05 (7/27 to 8/27)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:51:52 -0000

Hi Sue and Authors,

This draft is useful and important as the control plane for SR service programming.
But I think the following points need more description or clarification.

1、The Service Type Table in section 4.1 allocates service values for only four services(Classifier, Firewall, Load Balancer, DPI).  But the number of service functions is more that that, e.g, HTTP Header Enrichment functions, TCP optimizer, HOST_ID injection, etc.
RFC 9015 section10.5 shows the "Service Function Chaining Service Function Types" Registry in the BGP control plane for NSH. Maybe this draft can refer to that.

2、To associate the Service SID value with Service-related Information, new TLVs are defined for SR-MPLS SID/Label TLV in this draft. 
But the SR-MPLS SID/Label TLV is used to indicate the first label of the SRGB/SRLG range.
Since the purpose is to associate the service information with each single service label, it's more reasonable to carry the new TLVs in Prefix-SID TLV, or maybe Adjacency SID TLV as well(not sure if the service SID  can be an adj-SID). 

3、As for my understanding, in SRv6 SFC, since each type of SR proxy has its own SID endpoint behavior codepoint as defined draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming, and the endpoint behavior is carried in SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV in BGP-LS, we can get the SR proxy info of the SID through the corresponding endpoint behavior, right?
So why the "Segment Routing Function Identifier(SFI)" with new code points for SR Proxy in section 4.2 is needed.

4、How to get the SR proxy type of the SID through BGP-LS in SR-MPLS dataplane? didn't see the detailed description in the draft.

Regards,
Yao