Re: [spring] 答复: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 09 May 2017 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E944120227; Mon, 8 May 2017 21:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 LzIqy9nAus6E; Mon, 8 May 2017 21:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (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 E84DA129AB2; Mon, 8 May 2017 21:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k91so63031769ioi.1; Mon, 08 May 2017 21:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=njPnFQctFH4WXmNQUG7xNWkbk+K19hDrbu9y/KNTig8=; b=vWm3hgiGum52dAVoRljBoc5PIGsY/66babkWMGqS71Y4HD3sue84gJrsvq+5Q5aKXS 9nPXrLey3NBGM+1oK1JXf0e4Jhm5Vc7TU16es8JCiTOKBgu2LLATy0r9qy3yqOnkSUpb 0+NTFzVd0p6vfvgKcrim3GMacBa53jQUrB7wIi6p5Se5rWo+WgTimGXj9OEW5un1Soxi hxyQLp08tPoiF9fMxWnBxMgoi0JRoG1B+P662umTXSBMw2nZPzXEP5bzRNlMhBXl+Yp6 3R6rPd+Y/hFRHopLpCa7OTX3/1PnWHzxSOo4gFNayInl3SdrPEK1gkMd6rC+t97A/ere a+SQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=njPnFQctFH4WXmNQUG7xNWkbk+K19hDrbu9y/KNTig8=; b=H9xTxIqrYD+1qDByUjv8xol9DqZEQdKyXtzrehM6KmixlFlw9gpgfA8bwbX3VOHDTs nb4ROut580eyRUa1uGNDVdo14bBE0ow4Bvd6OaMUM2ggAIag5sEbaXX8iAd1EFOZ4Xwn TYNPxWjZEc7+Id43wwio3spsCHE+IJ+CLpoLoqEg5qX6G7jN3khiX3aUjWnEMIHs8wYA IpVJsFWsmAyqJaYZ/JWPNdczzuv9wcgOitKTPiBej6/QsfVh1qJmvyh0BCVGiPflSkKS CGi9WQz+EWF60KSLhYght5XDGT+mU6ILKTgkavUwWkAo8e14op5RAHAdkHPKbJf/6ssX YeOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6VqMdqp1c8MmvyabCr2qYXoUoJCsWm6h5CaLNM7oPZ7I40+/C3 ZZgaK+nL1oC6WMfcJ5l1tLY6Gm47bg==
X-Received: by 10.107.189.198 with SMTP id n189mr60124928iof.179.1494303656302; Mon, 08 May 2017 21:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.62.24 with HTTP; Mon, 8 May 2017 21:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.62.24 with HTTP; Mon, 8 May 2017 21:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB9C502@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <149374426742.21414.16408814015665498739@ietfa.amsl.com> <3E209B45-90CE-4EEB-9D2B-E14EFE28DCE0@cisco.com> <87a1534f-079d-3707-9f5d-9327e831bf7a@gmail.com> <B91C6D2C-897A-404C-80B3-EAA8BDEC4414@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnsEn3JBpb8b7Jwcm32K=-iGA3GOPokWwnaXqSpDW89Vg@mail.gmail.com> <28cabccc-5426-9938-e2bf-169de0959ddc@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERkzBo2YZPfi-GBp_JdPLsDDOSqwtSmYR0Cjj1kXJhKH4A@mail.gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB9C502@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 06:20:55 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0YcMhw_1G9X72BWL3kXVgdFIMz0
Message-ID: <CA+b+ER=JGvBB6F1dMpcwoFvBRA+H-cxrhvZpcuapGNHVdSpD0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] 答复: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Cc: stefano previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0c85e49ee560054f0faeb2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BVhBzw6soB-uizQbSGQcP6ZJbEc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 04:21:07 -0000

Hi,

Can you point me to any SRv6 document mandating that such mapping MUST be
done in a routing protocol ?

Thx,
R.


On May 9, 2017 05:16, "Xuxiaohu" <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi Robert,



Except the function indicated by all zeros, it does require mappings
between functions, function indications and locators. Take tenant network
function as an exampleJ



Best regards,

Xiaohu



*发件人:* spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] *代表 *Robert Raszuk
*发送时间:* 2017年5月8日 20:13
*收件人:* Stewart Bryant
*抄送:* spring@ietf.org; IETF Discussion; gen-art@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org; stefano previdi; Alvaro
Retana (aretana)
*主题:* Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-
cases-10





Hi Stewart,



> ​

Yes, but those are required anyway to support SRv6



That is incorrect.



Please watch Les's presentation during last IETF where he clearly and
correctly stated that IGP extensions for SRv6 are optional and not required
(unlike in the case of SR-MPLS where such signalling of global labels is
indeed necessary to build "global labels" based forwarding).



As a matter of fact I knew this will generate confusion in IETF and
recommended to make it very clear in the drafts. Distribution of SID
functions does not need to be carried in routing protocols. And SRv6 SID
locator function is native to IPv6 routing hence no extensions needed. Sure
they can be carried in IGPs or BGP but this is just an option not
necessity.



Best,

Robert.







On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
wrote:



On 05/05/2017 11:17, Robert Raszuk wrote:

And to add one observation ..

Stewart makes a point that SR-MPLS can be deployed without mpls control
plane.

Well it sure does not require LDP however IGP or BGP extensions for SR-MPLS
signalling is also an example of mpls control plane ... even if much
simpler than traditional cases it is still required.



​​

Yes, but those are required anyway to support SRv6. You always have to
provide the mapping between the function, the function identifier and the
function location.

- Stewart



_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring