Re: [spring] 回复: Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming :Section 4.16.2

["Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>]

Li, Ron,

The first email of this thread has been sent less than 24 hours ago.

Pablo.

From: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 16:55
To: li zhenqiang <[e-mail]>, "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: 回复: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming :Section 4.16.2
Resent from: <[e-mail]>
Resent to: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Resent date: Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 16:55


+1




Juniper Business Use Only
From: li zhenqiang <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:06 AM
To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <[e-mail]>
Subject: 回复: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming :Section 4.16.2

Where are the authors? Why should we guess here? I think the authors should involve in the discussion more actively, not just posting a new version. We are all working hard together to polish and impove the draft.

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
________________________________
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

发件人： Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)<mailto:[e-mail]>
发送时间： 2019-10-15 08:12
收件人： Ron Bonica<mailto:rbonica=[e-mail]>; SPRING WG List<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题： Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming :Section 4.16.2
Hi Ron;

It is my understanding, as long as the IPv6 address is a SRv6 SID, then we must newly define its processing rules; but I don’t know if it is intent of Authors.

--------------------------------------
Cheers !


WANG Weibin

From: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
Sent: 2019年10月15日 7:55
To: 'Ron Bonica' <rbonica=[e-mail]<mailto:rbonica=[e-mail]>>; SPRING WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming :Section 4.16.2

I think the USD action May be necessary, because it is relative to SRv6 SID as last SID in SRH, not to related to plain ipv6 address (RFC4291);

As plain IPv6 address in DA field of IPv6 packet, it is default behavior for Node identified by DA to further Decapsulate packet in this case.

--------------------------------------
Cheers !


WANG Weibin

From: spring <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: 2019年10月15日 7:03
To: SPRING WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming :Section 4.16.2

Authors,

Sorry, I meant to say USD, not USP.

                         Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 2:36 PM
To: SPRING WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming :Section 4.16.2

Authors,

The USP flavor of the END, END.X and END.T functions isn’t needed.

USP is the default IPv6 behavior. So, if the source node specifies SID[0] as an RFC 4291 address on the SR egress node, you get the USP behavior for free.

                                                           Ron



Juniper Business Use Only