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

Xiaohu,

Mapping can be also well known .. for example from the RFC clearly defining
the functions. That clearly removes the need of *any* control plane to
dynamically carry the values.

Cheers,
R.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

> Nobody said that such mapping must be distributed in a routing protocolJ
> We just said that such mapping is always required no matter we use an MPLS
> label as function instruction or using the latter part of an IPv6 address
> as function instruction.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Xiaohu
>
>
>
>
>
> *发件人:* rraszuk@gmail.com [mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com] *代表 *Robert Raszuk
> *发送时间:* 2017年5月9日 12:21
> *收件人:* Xuxiaohu
> *抄送:* stefano previdi; Stewart Bryant; Alvaro Retana (aretana);
> draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; IETF
> Discussion; spring@ietf.org
> *主题:* Re: [spring] 答复: Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>