[Idr] Request comments on draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-headend-behavior
linchangwang <linchangwang.04414@h3c.com> Tue, 05 March 2024 14:09 UTC
Return-Path: <linchangwang.04414@h3c.com>
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 777D7C14CF1C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:09:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.806
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RuXCJf4Yr3ro for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:09:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com (smtp.h3c.com [60.191.123.50]) (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 0A655C14F5F6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com ([172.25.15.154]) by h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com with ESMTP id 425E9R3v013396 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:09:27 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from linchangwang.04414@h3c.com)
Received: from DAG6EX02-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com (unknown [10.62.14.11]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A6452004BAA for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:10:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from DAG6EX01-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.62.14.10) by DAG6EX02-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.62.14.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.27; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:09:28 +0800
Received: from DAG6EX01-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::1d4d:847c:a7e3:1f10]) by DAG6EX01-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::1d4d:847c:a7e3:1f10%20]) with mapi id 15.02.1258.027; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:09:28 +0800
From: linchangwang <linchangwang.04414@h3c.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Request comments on draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-headend-behavior
Thread-Index: AdpvBSpA2T+NcOi7Sq+yyv4cncHGsQ==
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 14:09:28 +0000
Message-ID: <4ddb236fa0d74911ba533a1d9ab73363@h3c.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.76.156]
x-sender-location: DAG2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4ddb236fa0d74911ba533a1d9ab73363h3ccom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-DNSRBL:
X-SPAM-SOURCE-CHECK: pass
X-MAIL: h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com 425E9R3v013396
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rbL9cYOM7qg13kiMuS7_sUJrwVk>
Subject: [Idr] Request comments on draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-headend-behavior
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 14:09:50 -0000
Hi All, This document introduces extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) for distributing SR policies with headend behavior. Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-headend-behavior/<http://ai.h3c.com/redirect?target=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-lin-idr-sr-policy-headend-behavior%2F> In RFC8986, the encapsulation behavior for SRv6 Policy is defined as H.Encaps, H.Encaps.Red, H.Encaps.L2, H.Encaps.L2.Red. However, in the current BGP distribution of SRv6 Policy, only the bindingSID is provided, and the encapsulation behavior of the SR Policy itself is not included. The traffic steering using the BindingSID and the SRv6 Policy itself are different, and the flavor of the bindingSID cannot determine the encapsulation behavior of the SRv6 Policy. This document introduces extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) for distributing SR policies with headend behavior. This allows specific behaviors to be instructed to the headend when packets are directed into the SR policy without using BSID. We welcome your feedback and comments! Best Regards, Changwang ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出 的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、 或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本 邮件！ This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
- [Idr] Request comments on draft-lin-idr-sr-policy… linchangwang