Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-zzhang-idr-tunnel-encapsulation-label-stack-01 - 12/23/2022 to 1/13/2023

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Jeffrey,

Is this the text you are going to add to your document ?

Thx,
R.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 7:56 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> This does not exclude the SAFI 73 way. Either of the following can be used:
>
>
>
>    - Use SAFI 73 to pre-install an sr-policy, and then reference the
>    installed sr-policy when advertising the service route.
>    - Spell out the sr-path directly when advertising the service routes,
>    w/o pre-installing an sr-policy first.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2023 2:08 PM
> *To:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] WG adoption of
> draft-zzhang-idr-tunnel-encapsulation-label-stack-01 - 12/23/2022 to
> 1/13/2023
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Jeffrey,
>
>
>
> I am saying that existing IDR document
> (draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy) covers already what is defined
> in this subject draft and I do not see why extensions defined in SAFI 73
> could not be used as is to address requirements of steering to tunnel
> egress.
>
>
>
> Zzh4> The above cannot use the existing “sr-policy tunnel” because the
> sr-policy tunnel is used to setup the tunnel (on the ingress) using SAFI
> 73, while in the above use cases we’re telling that certain service routes
> or multicast state (with different SAFIs) use a particular sr-mpls path.
>
>
>
> If we go by this then any use of SAFI 73 would be unnecessary as you would
> instead carry service routes with their own policies.
>
>
>
> That sounds like a highly unscalable approach to use embedded into service
> routes underlay paths.
>
>
>
> Instead the current SR architecture recommends to carry just the color in
> service routes which in turn can be use to match colors in SR policy paths.
>
>
>
> So you are proposing to skip SAFI 73 and carry it directly in service
> paths. Isn't this layer violation ?
>
>
>
> In any case, Gyan and I presented our concern. Time for other WG members
> to provide their opinion as well as get feedback from SPRING WG as this
> model directly "extends" the SR architecture.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>