RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Sat, 23 May 2020 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@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 C3D0A3A0C66; Sat, 23 May 2020 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 yd5A-yzSp3gu; Sat, 23 May 2020 09:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 5FBE33A0C63; Sat, 23 May 2020 09:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3DEEB862A601055BC398; Sat, 23 May 2020 17:59:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sat, 23 May 2020 17:59:06 +0100
Received: from DGGEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.41) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 23 May 2020 17:59:06 +0100
Received: from DGGEML509-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.143]) by dggeml424-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Sun, 24 May 2020 00:59:03 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Thread-Topic: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Thread-Index: AdYwBYkgTau2vInrR6WP+x+iqlpN9gAPJDmwADf+cOA=
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 16:59:03 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A37DC6@dggeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2CD12@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB63482CFA4D5AB938D5A4B818AEB40@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB63482CFA4D5AB938D5A4B818AEB40@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.234.160]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A37DC6dggeml509mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QkbBT5DZodgNMPCjdrD2ncXuUVM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 23 May 2020 16:59:13 -0000

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply.

Regarding NSH, are you saying to use CRH as a tunnel transport encapsulation between two SFF nodes?
Or we can use a single CRH for steering packet through all the SFF nodes that the NSH packet should visit?

Regarding using the first DOH, how to do that without the container design by your draft[1]?
Or the same option TLV will bind to different behaviors on different nodes according to the node local configuration?

Best,
Cheng


[1]. https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04.txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UD4vf0darQ9cskFhH1fJ9jwZJ-nIciQxgVnf1219YuyyaNcgvNdRUdkjwNmXwyHT$>.


From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 10:17 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>; 6man <6man@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Cheng,

The sole purpose of a Routing header is to steer a packet along a specified path to its destination. It shouldn't attempt to do any more than that.

The CRH does not attempt to deliver service function information to service function instances. However, it is compatible with:

-          The Network Service Header (NSH)
-          The Destination Options header that precedes the Routing header

Both of these can be used to deliver service function information to service function instances.

                                                                                                                     Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com<mailto:c.l@huawei.com>>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 2:56 AM
To: 6man <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>
Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Ron,

When reading the CRH draft, I have a question about how CRH support SFC?

For example, we have a SID List [S1, S2, S3, S4, S5], and S3 is a SFC related SID, how to indicate that? By PSSI? [1]

But how to know which segment endpoint node/egress node should process this PSSI? At the beginning of the SRm6 design, this is described in [2]. But you deleted the containers [2].

Without that, I don't really understand how SFC can be supported.


Best,
Cheng



[1]. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six-01#section-4.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six-01*section-4.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UD4vf0darQ9cskFhH1fJ9jwZJ-nIciQxgVnf1219YuyyaNcgvNdRUdkjwP15i-Xa$>
[2]. https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04.txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UD4vf0darQ9cskFhH1fJ9jwZJ-nIciQxgVnf1219YuyyaNcgvNdRUdkjwNmXwyHT$>.