[Idr] Re: Request SPRING WG review and comments for draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize

梁艳荣 <liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn> Wed, 18 September 2024 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <liangyanrong@ruijie.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 06945C1D52F7 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 03:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ruijie.com.cn
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1tOsO_dppp6t for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 03:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va-1-14.ptr.blmpb.com (va-1-14.ptr.blmpb.com [209.127.230.14]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4110C180B6B for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 03:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=feishu2311081108; d=ruijie.com.cn; t=1726654069; h=from:subject: mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:reply-to:content-type: mime-version:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=SyfPe6r1fwk+E5RGLjEbf/cljIEd2JMPs2vOPZA/BsQ=; b=QU4PC8M4JGnSYqQkJkDWc6bXwBrYufYWa6D5qyudbKgSf7BzPBo8C/TWnu4RoQaNGs/IUg /5Z9krEmRl3oJTPQYJQ11FkeMTttI23EOgKV2CIe/r6khse+oNWsQmKJgSSv2Yoy0cA+Fl m8FT4O4keKDDNCAsaBOzyFABRc3zyZEtmIwUHqy6VU+gxqbx53Lf46zR4hXmU1V5UeShCJ NKZoufuEeHoFBDbTpm4BvuJ7MI8vESFNBHeClnVkCNvLi/DS6VBl/NZnwFZ2PpWIQw0dOi zVvrOxNk1LH7bLulA7/Gh3m/Z2MqEqKilyxrtCQDTin3K0cN/stVvjTM4YZpIw==
X-Lms-Return-Path: <lba+166eaa675+e9f540+ietf.org+liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202409111631112451969281@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="4a685ea52040b2e6d89d5ce0541c6812fc02bc841e38dec9090095e31503"
Message-Id: <b9493115906f577da9239f0bd304ac13e2f14189.06be97e1.e90f.4f6f.a49a.92140acdc463@feishu.cn>
To: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:07:48 +0800
From: 梁艳荣 <liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <202409111631112451969281@chinamobile.com>
Message-ID-Hash: WBYANR3QRXVDC25ZO7MLT6RVTMRAHSZZ
X-Message-ID-Hash: WBYANR3QRXVDC25ZO7MLT6RVTMRAHSZZ
X-MailFrom: liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: spring <spring@ietf.org>, shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: Request SPRING WG review and comments for draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/82EfCo3yjK4HUuNdc_eC3V5RkD4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Yisong , WG, 
 
I've reviewed your document, and the two issues mentioned are indeed very common.
In my opinion, solving these two problems is meaningful and practical, as it can reduce unnecessary bandwidth overhead.
 
Thanks,
Yanrong

> From: "Yisong Liu"<liuyisong@chinamobile.com>
> Date:  Wed, Sep 11, 2024, 16:33
> Subject:  [Idr] Request  SPRING WG review and comments for draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize
> To: "spring"<spring@ietf.org>
> Cc: "Susan"<shares@ndzh.com>, "idr"<idr@ietf.org>
> Dear SPRING WG members,
> 
> When presenting the  draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize at the IDR interim meeting, based on the suggestions from the IDR and SPRING chairs,  we will distribute the described issues in SPRING mailing list.  We hope to seek WG member's opinions to determine whether the problem scenarios described in the draft are common and need to be addressed.
> 
> 
> Here is the brief description of the problems of this draft. 
> In the tunnel splicing scenarios or cross domain path splicing scenarios, the SRH extension header of VPN user's data packets forwarded based on this SRv6 Policy will simultaneously encapsulate the End SID and VPN SID of the egress node.In this way, the following problems will arise:
> Problem 1: PSP behavior may not be executable.
> Problem 2: The forwarding efficiency of egress node decreases.
> 
> 
> For detailed information , please see the draft in the link below : 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize/
>  
> We request for review and comments in SPRING.  Welcome any discussions, suggestions or comments.
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> Yisong on behalf of co-authors
> 
>