Re: [mpls] [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture

Pushpasis Sarkar <> Wed, 09 September 2015 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB531B3E7D; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROZ43HBj16EM; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::768]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDA681B3E72; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:45:00 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0262.011; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:45:00 +0000
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <>
To: Gaurav agrawal <>, Alexander Vainshtein <>
Thread-Topic: [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture
Thread-Index: AQHQ6x7eIkcW1d9q2U2kd/ro+ilNHg==
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:45:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR05MB1972; 5:VZ33gbJJw38TWiI7P8oSpzW//xn460MMd6Q2fXTe5Oxx8rfz5NT+OVo3vH37uszts/pGZKP8gem5zTA3zctXBQ5vhroe1IwNs5AJm/tN+KC0md5tzrPKFsEBpIs6ruXiMG07krp32HcoxRdOfU6DdQ==; 24:mM8IrJtVb/k+2MiMQnBW78rMmhmfuX/KlFIukOam9rmHdpS07dd4AK/2eOJSYPeOsFPqtPmT8Lb3+9VI+4Sw60/qXL3+LW+NNeqbUVNQUcQ=; 20:/pyRjsdwn/M8h8aX5+jI/cl7jfpNil7oKXTwq6VuMjswqE66mwWjbpWB4n+0Ni0S9YKb6R+a0ZFjZYVb/4k6MA==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR05MB1972;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(108003899814671);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001); SRVR:BLUPR05MB1972; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR05MB1972;
x-forefront-prvs: 0694C54398
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(199003)(501624003)(377454003)(189002)(252514010)(5004730100002)(2900100001)(50986999)(66066001)(102836002)(106356001)(19300405004)(68736005)(86362001)(5001830100001)(99936001)(18206015028)(5001960100002)(77156002)(5002640100001)(5007970100001)(62966003)(11100500001)(105586002)(54356999)(15975445007)(64706001)(15187005004)(19580405001)(122556002)(87936001)(92566002)(19580395003)(10400500002)(81156007)(33656002)(97736004)(18717965001)(46102003)(77096005)(5001860100001)(40100003)(4001540100001)(36756003)(5001770100001)(82746002)(83716003)(83506001)(101416001)(19627595001)(17760045003)(16236675004)(99286002)(4001350100001)(189998001)(106116001)(19625215002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB1972;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_544F5E3F82AD49BAA83B201DE49A08A6junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Sep 2015 16:45:00.8620 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB1972
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <>, "" <>, Vinod Kumar S 70786 <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:45:08 -0000

Hi Gaurav,

Looks like you are asking the routers to forward looking at the second innermost label and not the topmost label. This does NOT fit into the MPLS architecture. I am not sure it fits SR-IPV6 architecture or not, but I doubt.

Looks like your requirement is that each node on shortest path to the final destination (indicated by the bottom-most Node-segment) provide some service. In this regard, can you be specific about wether all the nodes will provide the same service or different service? It does not make sense to me for all the transit nodes to execute the same service on the packet. So if they are not required to provide the same service on each transit node, question is how one service label will be enough to indicate which specific service will need to be executed at each node.

Hope you have gone through SFC drafts already.


From: spring on behalf of Gaurav agrawal
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 6:09 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)", "<>", "<>", Vinod Kumar S 70786
Subject: Re: [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture

Dear Alexander,

Thanks for your inputs. Let me further elaborate on the subject.

The requirement is to make every node on the path to destination to perform a specific service(Service could be anything).

Currently Service label can only follow a Node Label, because of which to let every node perform same service, SR Label stack expects to have node and service label for each transit node, this results in huge label stack.

If we can push a service label prior to node label & each intermediate node can perform below operation:
1) Pop Service Label & perform/schedule the service.
2) Decide the further forwarding based on Node Label
3) Push the service label back to stack.

With this we needn’t repeat the service label for each transit node thereby making the SR Label stack COMPACT.

We can derive many optimized implementation by having this.

So, we would like to hear from You and MPLS/SPRING community about our view point.

Thanks and Regards,
Gaurav Agrawal

Mobile: +91-7838700296
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

From: Alexander Vainshtein []
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 5:01 PM
To: Gaurav agrawal
Cc: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Vinod Kumar S 70786;<>;<>
Subject: RE: [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture

Not sure I understand the context for your requirement.
But to the best of my understanding your requirement does not match MPLS architecture.


Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302

From: spring [] On Behalf Of Gaurav agrawal
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:38 PM
Cc: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Vinod Kumar S 70786
Subject: [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture


We would like to have a label stack with only two labels such a way that service label is a top label  and the bottom label would be SR destination node label. This is to make sure each intermediate node perform the specified service based on the top label while reaching the destination.
We would appreciate if anyone could clarify whether SR architecture could allow a service label to be a top label in a label stack.

Thanks and Regards,
Gaurav Agrawal

Mobile: +91-7838700296
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.