Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sun, 11 July 2021 22:24 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03BD3A20F7; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bOEt2_LPnNr3; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AACCA3A20FA; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id j9so8861451pfc.5; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vq8fZI3eqnNwdlZzoI1S2A8NrPspAvH6rBDSQT5GziM=; b=bHXqu3ILcH7RypHbDEev32Ijbky5E5IyQokOpmdmllWM1LOgvcdOVwPXH4cy32JRta zG/suSvP2VsSla87VlwsbmHdWa8RTok1AmQAg5EkaZ/8p+U1kvID7BuHxj1hAilttysl qEDEqEViSzsV7U9Yg2Pwy1g6kRJyCHER8LwDqjjYD3dRz6oqDxWg1i8Is+kmMBD06EaV XLZuV2jXY7VtXXM1EB3qsKhDlSqGv+TXpGV0vmwHglNow0kCt2nYc3O9IDQDBGl0J1eP vCARNUdCf9oeQMVDHGF2oDcyEBmnnJdT78VS1NqM9G0GcfdIOc5M5vwp4kcgbYdkRoUJ kVDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vq8fZI3eqnNwdlZzoI1S2A8NrPspAvH6rBDSQT5GziM=; b=aowTjUAkb/gjR1QDzRGUgry1Lp/iqsz5eF82UKiiNCdCWdmP4DmUzdaWlX/3NOrhFh UUe20+qdjHky6Ow7gd2gJHg5e6kWBux7P7DFbnbtR5eeQ2prgql7PUIRkksx9SI08oOv lhDJTZPHeCe6deBISP7aTmOqiACw6iCLXkEBBHm0/jWz3YKs/HnFqB4DrKJgsp/C4rQ5 QNY2eQVwXiJZMyM0OOe/Ib3PpqHAZCw9gkpFIqEDwRfuW43KH7ganlljQZs37tGT4acr SkG453znZBf5ARDbso3Pz5NJ3q4dyW7OZmyDOEoWpwY+6thnx6OZEMiEpq1cLl504Rj0 f2zA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530FRROQ2HScwbqPuROCF/KmypmYCA3KFVaHd3t1TBfMBHTNaejf v870YFrwI6sy8MunYFpc9cb7axCy9w+2SDQ5PPc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxsZO6z2nsPV4dij9ny5RLe8tKQYS5BbrB2ftPWWAHNYyM1pbR7qCWZ6r+qsgbfeJUdJ89yBB3XXcNjBdGbEU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:214a:b029:323:3c6e:a24a with SMTP id o10-20020a056a00214ab02903233c6ea24amr32770903pfk.4.1626042264909; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <25012_1612895472_6022D4F0_25012_72_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A490C4A3A@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <3058_1612896034_6022D722_3058_18_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A490C4AE4@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <MN2PR13MB420694920BB2C388FF833387D22C9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <28823_1623169127_60BF9867_28823_29_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4CDC8DB3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <MN2PR13MB42063DEA31BA4160BAA3034DC20D9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <27549_1624365203_60D1D893_27549_177_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4CDF47BD@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <MN2PR13MB4206DF56D1E5A9C54EA9BD69C2099@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB4206DF56D1E5A9C54EA9BD69C2099@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:24:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2uiu68=-X+89NFRoNR5jy1UVyWRC=PDSy6_JSr1d3ozA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Guichard <jguichar@futurewei.com>
Cc: "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096fc5705c6e07741"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/52nHw69uxNOGC8EZVrdrwfy7slo>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2021 22:24:32 -0000
Dear Authors I have read the latest -08 draft and I support publication. All comments seem to be addressed in this revision. Thank you Gyan On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:01 AM James Guichard <jguichar@futurewei.com> wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > > > v-07 just posted please check section 6.1 to make sure that it satisfies > your comments. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Jim > > > > *From:* bruno.decraene@orange.com <bruno.decraene@orange.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:33 AM > *To:* James Guichard <jguichar@futurewei.com>; spring@ietf.org > *Cc:* draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > Thanks for the latest version and your replies. > > Please see inline [Bruno2] > > > > As an aside, I’m waiting for the reviews from the RTG and INT directorate. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr/history/ > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr%2Fhistory%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjguichar%40futurewei.com%7C83f5845c9b634e4ee24c08d93579ee85%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637599620111594356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=boupVRw9WQaOYLDIWnW5gN8ZOht89rAwSEtfyO6g0oI%3D&reserved=0> > > In the meantime, I’m initiated the shepherd write up. > > > > *From:* James Guichard [mailto:jguichar@futurewei.com > <jguichar@futurewei.com>] > *Sent:* Friday, June 18, 2021 5:00 PM > *To:* DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <bruno.decraene@orange.com>; > spring@ietf.org > *Cc:* draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > Latest version covers most of your comments I think. Please see inline. > > > > *From:* bruno.decraene@orange.com <bruno.decraene@orange.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:19 PM > *To:* James Guichard <jguichar@futurewei.com>; spring@ietf.org > *Cc:* draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > Please see inline [Bruno] > > > > *From:* spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org <spring-bounces@ietf.org>] *On > Behalf Of *James Guichard > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:13 PM > *To:* DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN <bruno.decraene@orange.com>; spring@ietf.org > *Cc:* draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > Following up on this. Please see inline. > > > > *From:* bruno.decraene@orange.com <bruno.decraene@orange.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:41 PM > *To:* spring@ietf.org > *Cc:* draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr > > > > Hi authors, WG, > > > > Speaking as the shepherd. > > > > Thanks for the -04 which answer my previous set of comments. > > > > I’ve reviewed the document again, focusing on the new text. Please find > below some additional comments. > > > > === > > SR-MPLS §6.1 > > > > " At the end of the SR-MPLS path it is necessary to provide an > > indication to the tail-end that NSH follows the SR-MPLS label stack > > as described by [RFC8596]." > > > > My understanding is that RFC8596 performs the above goal by adding an SFF > label at the bottom of the stack. In which case it would not be mandatory > to disable Penultimate Hop Popping on the prefix SID as > draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-04 is mandating. > > > > I"m seeing two options that you could either choose from or describe both: > > - a prefix SID dedicated to NSH. In which case PHP needs to be disabled > and there is no need for the SFF label specified in RFC8596 (alternatively, > this prefix SID is _the_ SFF label defined in RFC8596, although 8596 refers > to a local label(segment) while usually a prefix SID is a global segment) > > - use a multi-purpose prefix SID. In which case, indeed " At the end of > the SR-MPLS path it is necessary to provide an indication to the tail-end > that NSH follows the SR-MPLS label stack as described by [RFC8596]. > > > > Jim> I believe this is clarified in -v05. The new text says: > > > > As described in [RFC8402], the IGP signaling extension for IGP-Prefix > > segment includes a flag to indicate whether directly connected > > neighbors of the node on which the prefix is attached should perform > > the NEXT operation or the CONTINUE operation when processing the SID. > > When NSH is carried beneath SR-MPLS it is necessary to terminate the > > NSH-based SFC at the tail-end node of the SR-MPLS label stack. This > > is the equivalent of MPLS Ultimate Hop Popping (UHP) and therefore > > the prefix-SID associated with the tail-end of the SFC MUST be > > advertised with the CONTINUE operation so that the penultimate hop > > node does not pop the top label of the SR-MPLS label stack and > > thereby expose NSH to the wrong SFF. This is realized by setting No- > > PHP flag in Prefix-SID Sub-TLV [RFC8667], [RFC8665]. It is > > RECOMMENDED that a specific prefix-SID be allocated at each node for > > use by the SFC application for this purpose. > > > > Alternatively, if NEXT operation is performed, then at the end of the > > SR-MPLS path it is necessary to provide an indication to the tail-end > > that NSH follows the SR-MPLS label stack as described by [RFC8596]. > > > > So there are two options as you indicate above. 1) use the prefix segment > as the indicator as described by the 1st paragraph in the new text, or 2) > use an SFF label as described by the second paragraph. > > > > [Bruno] There are two options but the text currently says that the first > option MUST be used (“the prefix-SID associated with the tail-end of the > SFC MUST be advertised with the CONTINUE operation”) which seems to > nullifies the second paragraph (“Alternatively, “). > > So may be some rephrasing may be needed to indeed allow both options. > > > > Jim> Covered in latest version. > > [Bruno2] In -06, I’m not seeing any change related to this section 6.1 > > > > Also > > " At the end of the SR-MPLS path it is necessary to provide an > > indication to the tail-end that NSH follows the SR-MPLS label stack > > as described by [RFC8596]." > > > > In the scheme "SR-based SFC", "the end of the SR-MPLS" is only the last SF > (not all other SF on the SF chain). > > So how does others SFC have an indication that the NSH follows the SR-MPLS > label stack? > > Alternatively something along :s/ end of the SR-MPLS path/for all the SF > along the SR-MPLS path > > > > Jim> as far as I can tell “other SFC” do not need an indication as the > prefix SID has End.NSH action so they will remove and cache the SR stack > and forward the NSH packet to the SF associated with the prefix SID. > > [Bruno] OK for SRv6. > > For SR-MPLS, how does this work? Draft says “In the case of SR-MPLS this will be a prefix SID [RFC8402 <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc8402&data=04%7C01%7Cjguichar%40futurewei.com%7C83f5845c9b634e4ee24c08d93579ee85%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637599620111594356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=wiA17CTD5o5b3TdxuKJqC6JwJJdRrOZSZ2V4kmTmcKU%3D&reserved=0>]” > > - Can it use the “regular” prefix SID? (draft only says that It is RECOMMENDED that a specific prefix-SID be allocated at each node for use by the SFC application for this purpose.) > > - If not, does it needs a specific & dedicated IP address? (RFC8402 seem to mandate that a Prefix Segment be an IGP prefix segment and that a single prefix-SID be advertised per tuple <prefix, topology, algorithm> > > - How does the ingress know that this Prefix SID is to be used for SR-based SFC? And only to be used for SR-based SFC? > > > > Jim> In MPLS (including SR-MPLS) nodes uses labels as they please. So > yes, an SFF that may also be an MPLS switch needs to advertise separate > labels to indicate that they are used for SFF processing (looking at the > NSH). As far as I know, MPLS / SR-MPLS has never standardized how this is > indicated / coordinated. By assumption, the PCE / Ingress classifier knows > what labels to use. > > [Bruno2] OK. > > --Bruno > > > > Jim > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > 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*
- [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Zhuangshunwan
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Huzhibo
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Linda Dunbar
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr licong@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Chongfeng Xie
- [spring] 答复: WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Yangfan (IP Standard)
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Ran Pang(联通集团中国联通研究院- 本部)
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Huaimo Chen
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr James Guichard
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr James Guichard
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr gregory.mirsky
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr James Guichard
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr James Guichard
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr James Guichard
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr James Guichard
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr James Guichard
- Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Gyan Mishra