Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method
"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Fri, 10 February 2023 07:29 UTC
Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39189C14EB14; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 23:29:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 xdO7DssXlU7M; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 23:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4189AC14CF17; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 23:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrpeml100004.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4PCld21dP5z67Mdh; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:25:26 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemi100018.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.35) by lhrpeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.17; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:29:34 +0000
Received: from kwepemi500017.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.110) by kwepemi100018.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.34; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:29:32 +0800
Received: from kwepemi500017.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.110]) by kwepemi500017.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.110]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.034; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:29:32 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
CC: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method
Thread-Index: AQHZNp+mOlpeax7NzEGpt1fK0UqgsK7HzPqQ
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:29:32 +0000
Message-ID: <3b8654da903e4e5da3652bb761271c03@huawei.com>
References: <c51e4a3f-5e6e-5386-4e6a-23709d52c1fe@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <c51e4a3f-5e6e-5386-4e6a-23709d52c1fe@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.40.66]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/P_S3yKesSZoXz9XIVpzvs-Xx2Zw>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:29:42 -0000
Hi WG, I've reviewed this document and think it is ready for WG adoption. The proposed mechanism is mostly suitable for SRv6 networks, where usually the measurement on only the segment endpoints is needed, thus the overhead on the transit nodes can be reduced. Best regards, Jie > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 8:44 AM > To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org> > Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org> > Subject: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation > for Alternate Marking Method > > This call is for the draft at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark > > This email starts the WG adoption call for the subject draft (as requested by > the authors, with apologies from the WG chairs for how long it has taken to > kick this out.) This call will run through the end of the day on Feb > 16. Pleaes read the whole email as there are a few points, and it is not that > long. > > Please comment on whether you think this topic is something you think the > spring WG should work, whether you think this draft is a good starting point > for such work, any issues or concerns you have, and whether you would be > willing to help be contributing and / or reviewing the work if the WG does > choose to work on it. > > 6man is copied for their information, as this is different from but related to > an extension header proposal in front of 6man. > > Authors and named contributors, please confirm to the list that all known, > relevant, IPR has been disclosed. If it has note, please remedy this gap. > > The spring chairs have noted one aspect of this draft that caught our eye, and > we would appreciate WG members who comment on the adoption to > consider, and if possible opine, on this. As we read this draft, as distinct > from the related 6man extension header work, this causes the recorded > altmarks to only be updated at routers identified in the SRH segment > list. (We presume this would include all identified points in a compressed > container.) We could not tell from the document what the value was for this > as distinct from getting the measurements at all routers. Do WG members > understand and agree that it does have value? > > As a lesser point, we consider that one quote in the draft is misleading and > will likely need to be reworded in the near future. The draft say "SRH TLV > can also be used to encode the AltMark Data Fields for SRv6 and to monitor > every node along the SR path." It is unclear if these was intended to mean > all routers (most of which would not see this TLV) or if it was intended to > refer to only those routers identified in the SRH, in which case we presume it > will be reworded. > > Thank you, > > Joel > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Heade… Joel Halpern
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Haoyu Song
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Cheng Li
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Mauro Cociglio
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … xiao.min2
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Haoyu Song
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… 庞冉(联通集团中国联通研究院-本 部)
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … xiao.min2
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Huaimo Chen
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Xuewei Wang
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Aijun Wang
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Nilo Massimo
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Tianran Zhou
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Tianran Zhou
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment … Joel Halpern
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… bruno.decraene
- Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing H… Giuseppe Fioccola