Re: [spring] [srcomp] compression analysis draft question on proposals analyzed

Thanks Darren!

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:23 PM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Was: Re: [spring]
> draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02#section-4.1.1
>
>
>
> I’m sending this note to redirect this question to the srcomp DT for an
> editorial fix, when the team meets next.
>
>
>
> For the DT:
>
> Each proposal, introduced in section 1, discusses how it supports 16-bit
> and 32-bit SIDs. However, Gyan’s question indicates this could be more
> clearly stated in the analysis draft to help readers less familiar with a
> proposal.  As such, section 1 can be improved accordingly.
>
>
>
> Darren
>
>
>
> On 2021-09-24, 1:32 PM, "spring" <spring-bounces@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gyan,
>
>
>
> You raise a very good point. In the analysis document, Tables 1 through 6
> and Tables 12 through 15 each contain only one column for the CSID. They do
> not indicate whether the number in that column were calculated using the
> NEXT-C-SID, REPLACE-C-SID, or NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID. (That is, the do not
> indicate whether they were calculated using uSID, G-SID, or a combination
> of both).
>
>
>
> Each of these tables should be modified, so that the CSID column is
> replaced by three columns (NEXT-C-SID, REPLACE-C-SID, and
> NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID).
>
>
>
> If the numbers in these columns are different from one another, this may
> inform our discussion about whether NEXT-C-SID, REPLACE-C-SID, and
> NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID are different behaviors or different flavors of a
> behavior.
>
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2021 9:56 AM
> *To:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>;
> draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression@ietf.org;
> spring-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [spring]
> draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02#section-4.1.1
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Dear Spring Authors
>
>
>
> Please respond to this question the WG has related to which of the three
> SRv6 forwarding mechanisms called  flavors was inclusive of the compression
> analysis draft.
>
>
>
> The Analysis draft is ambiguous as to which SRv6 forwarding plane flavor
> was part of the analysis.
>
>
>
> This is a critical question that has come up by the WG and Chairs, and
> answering this question will help pave the way to an adoption call for
> C-SID.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 3:33 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Authors
>
>
>
> After having a few discussions on threads related to the SRv6 compression
> analysis draft results, as well as WG coming to consensus on a single SRv6
> compression solution, a few critical questions have come up related to
> C-SID draft that requires clarification by the authors.
>
>
>
> The C-SID draft has 3 compression solutions below and is a combination of
> the two drafts below which introduces 2 of the 3 compression solutions with
> the  C-SID draft introduction of yet a 3rd compression solution.
>
>
>
> Which of the 3 C-SID draft compression solutions was included as part of
> the DT analysis draft results and conclusion?
>
>
>
> This is a critical question that needs to be answered for clarification on
> the C-SID draft solution.
>
>
>
> As the WG has consensus on a single solution we need to have clarification
> from the authors which of the 3 compression solutions was included in the
> analysis.
>
>
>
> The three solutions are very different and all would yield different
> analysis results.
>
>
>
> I understand the authors have called the each solution a endpoint flavor
> which I see from the IANA codepoint allocations, however each flavor is a
> different solution.
>
>
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZR-kW_YB$>
>
>
>
> So the WG as stated would like a single solution so now we need feedback
> from the authors which of the three solutions or endpoint flavors was part
> of the DT analysis draft that the authors would like to put forward as the
> single compression solution.
>
>
>
> C-SID is a combination of the two drafts below:
>
>
>
> Combination of the two drafts below:
>
>
>
> G-SID - Generalized SID “REPLACE-C-SID”
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZXk5kUTn$>
>
>
>
> SRv6 uSID micro-segment “ NEXT-C-SID”
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZWozRCLY$>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
> --
>
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.verizon.com/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZVS6oNsY$>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.verizon.com/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZVS6oNsY$>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*