From nobody Mon Aug 17 14:54:50 2020 Return-Path: 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 90F8E3A124C for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:54:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.1, PDS_BTC_ID=0.498, PDS_BTC_MSGID=0.998, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 m0hkBhry1zvw for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) (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 6E2BA3A124D for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id l60so8453336pjb.3 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:54:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=kpllSTMh39ieHlJaXIe3OqNxoYSjJgF1OSsgcX/i2Pw=; b=q0vr8JTCaMIy2PM81bXW1BJt0hsPbzWC2EHX7BvnOOUybI6UO/Wkg5dy7yVEn8OzB3 gMAbwzgNtbfMCw6GaikyztQOU+2dbvh5zNezLrPYnHYyDCGw6HrVmlI2+SnwY9WEBDnx tLdMtaIwqMwemBVGSVeNuaccob/l7fd081/9pQb3yiRN+ZYt2HfNNGn0fRYRCDwkd9Vu +ZYJbMnqxV6wVV4E7sKj60QaHRTMzHlVfrvT8//XsfuKJxhayosVEBrOZnqDOrcZJ1rE Oocph9gql1FPtiCxqF75nuz11n7esxxrPLxrb5eQNEXx+LEXokMhYpf+YSWIHeSxRvTG NKxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=kpllSTMh39ieHlJaXIe3OqNxoYSjJgF1OSsgcX/i2Pw=; b=jG1aEVsOSfLsENbZy4IxOk5LOpV6LcwC+9W5Hd8ZZSeQMS9sdVnFOssNFRHY2yufF+ WqHLbNwLZu4aBCGZVEVii0h+yTKLNedD1isMj4dCqkHfI8LdxfsvD9nizMCpvstNcW5r rvYu70Pxnm3ZvmZdNzMRqpXZpdJm8BXfZl7DEjb2DXCIK2fRhdATgSrniI9KoETTT28P D8kPAFkTEmuuBeAXjoxdpO2NlIuaRuhhz/sqtsw+JrkoJQxIom+MZddnVxehBGsMD2Bv rZfhAxkyx/iLGvm2WyX4ZLMN5+ckao+qjQ9Ttw8IFZEXlMTU5Jgi9cw3V9eEzrUzmJ7K K02g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Xfx1n3h0fuPPQp9Ylw0EdlDZpgfukA2P9GRC2KIyI8nbQA4TL Ee5/t98MW0A4UpbsTNTb1og= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMUqIMcgPppLcWRM2tNv8+tx4vamFrJ9O/6flAi76TdaqywG5ZtNt86wHziuDqNOZHlQt/zA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:34c4:: with SMTP id m4mr13803670pjf.222.1597701277519; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f18sm21229161pfj.35.2020.08.17.14.54.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:54:27 -0700 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Robert Raszuk Cc: Gyan Mishra , Alexander Vainshtein , "=?utf-8?Q?EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com?=" , "Joel M. Halpern" , "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , Shraddha Hegde , "=?utf-8?Q?spring=40ietf.org?=" Message-ID: <8940cdc0-9c51-46a4-8ddc-79df170c433f@Spark> In-Reply-To: References: <7e29a863-70e9-f0a8-638f-5151348be515@joelhalpern.com> <4229284b-9a73-612b-306d-2818f37dd5b3@joelhalpern.com> <2c83ce86-4413-43bd-9d40-72ea3b9f4962@Spark> <19edd13c-8729-4534-b5da-c48a63a74aee@Spark> <7a88539d-9420-4abc-8dd6-2ba1401fcd0e@Spark> X-Readdle-Message-ID: 8940cdc0-9c51-46a4-8ddc-79df170c433f@Spark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5f3afc99_66ef438d_65d7" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [spring] Spring protection - determining applicability X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 21:54:49 -0000 --5f3afc99_66ef438d_65d7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi Robert, =22possession of enough information in PLR=E2=80=9D what do you call this= , if not more state, given this information is not present there today=3F= Cheers, Jeff On Aug 17, 2020, 2:25 PM -0700, Robert Raszuk , wrot= e: > Hi Jeff, > > This is not about more state in the network nor about=C2=A0including mi= rror service node in the backup path for some flows. > > The thread is about possession of enough information in PLR to either t= ake the packet and shift it over backup path or just drop it. > > - - - > > Btw - path protection is completely orthogonal to the above. > > Cheers, > Robert. > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:03 PM Jeff Tantsura wrote: > > > Gyan, > > > > > > TI-L=46A computation is local to the PLR and is topology dependent,= e.g change in downstream topology could/would influence the choice of MP= (PQ) node. > > > While an implementation could take into consideration some addition= al meta-data (e.g. locally provisioned SRLG, usually used to avoid protec= ted and protecting ports on the same line card), this is not a standardiz= ed method. > > > If a service node must be included in a backup path, there=E2=80=99= s a state associated with it as well as distribution of the state involve= d. > > > > > > Back to my point, removing state and introducing services in the ne= twork (at the very least at the computational logic and head-end level) a= re mutually exclusive, trade-offs are inevitable (You can't eat your cake= and have it). > > > Keeping the state limited to: > > > - a logically centralized computational logic (aka PCE) - off path,= scales horizontally, could use additional business logic for the path co= mputation, example - CPU/memory consumption on a service node > > > - head-end - anchor to primary/backup paths > > > seems like a reasonable set of trade-offs. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jeff > > > On Aug 14, 2020, 7:44 PM -0700, Gyan Mishra , wrote: > > > > > > > > Catching up on this thread as it is a interesting topic as =46RR = 1:N link protection, node protection and path protection is critical to o= perators. > > > > > > > > There are multiple somewhat orthogonal topics brought up in the d= iscussion. > > > > > > > > Excluding SR S=46C from =E2=80=9Cbypass=E2=80=9D capable node suc= h for appliances such as firewalls and load balancer.=C2=A0 Makes sense.=C2= =A0 I would not think S=46C would be in a PLR path to merger point but I = could be mistaken. > > > > > > > > The goal of SR is eliminating state and so having TE like state i= s undesirable. > > > > > > > > Intent based instantiation of bypass via SR-TE from network feedb= ack at PLR detection node of a failure and make before break pre computed= backup paths that can. > > > > > > > > It would make sense that SR-TE binding SID policy would be approp= riate for RSVP like =46RR link node or path protection. > > > > > > > > My thoughts on this topic of SR protection is that don=E2=80=99t = we already have =46RR protection natively without requiring SR-TE BSID or= any additional undesirable state maintenance with TI-L=46A. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Gyan > > > > > > > > > On =46ri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:47 PM Jeff Tantsura wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PCE computation in this case is trivial too(must traverse nod= e B or node X) else =46AIL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2020, 2:44 PM -0700, Jeff Tantsura , wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed and apologies, hit send before finishing the email (= it is =46riday) ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Path protection in this case make more sense and is much le= ss complex, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if in the pathA (A->B->C) node B is a service node, it can=E2= =80=99t be bypassed (node protected) if the link between A and B breaks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > however it could have a backup pathB (A->X->C) where X is t= he service node, potentially synchronizing its state with the node B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To my previous email - at expense of more state, we provide= path and service protection, hence the similarity with RSVP-TE trade-off= s. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2020, 2:30 PM -0700, Robert Raszuk , wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very similar to RSVP-TE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would rather differ on that statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See if you are using SR just for TE you are 100% right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if your SIDs embed additional local SR node processin= g functions this suddenly=C2=A0becomes a completely different game. Let's= keep this in mind in this thread/topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On =46ri, Aug 14, 2020 at 11:15 PM Jeff Tantsura wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very similar to RSVP-TE, path vs link/node pr= otection and usually dictated by the business logic, the triggers are obv= iously very different, head-end being notified of the failure on a path a= nd switching to the backup path vs reaction to a local failure, so same c= onsiderations apply: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -more state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -pre-reserved resources > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -predictable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -meets SLA (as good as primary) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -less state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -local > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -best effort / can cause congestions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2020, 10:46 AM -0700, Ketan Talaulikar (ke= tant) , wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We do not have a signalling mechanism in IGPs today= to indicate a =E2=80=9Cbypass-able=E2=80=9D indication for Prefix SIDs. = If there was a desire for it, an IGP extension would be required (there i= s none in progress A=46AIK). Note that this results in doubling the prefi= x SID scale (global labels) in the network. So I would not go about this = trivially. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it helps to get more inputs and perspective= s from operators on their views for doing a bypass via local protection f= or segments in an SR Policy. There may be those that prefer end-to-end pa= th protection using a fallback path that is say disjoint with the primary= but provides an appropriate SLA/intent=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: Robert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: 14 August 2020 23:04 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; Joel M. Halpern ; Shraddha Hegde ; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com ; spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - deter= mining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ketan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we are pretty much in sync here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But let me just observe that I purposely=C2=A0did n= ot mention about SR policies as we are not able to signal the intent with= the packets itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So all we have there is SIDs. BSIDs or prefix SIDs = need to be flooded with information if policies build with using them are= bypass eligible or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was actually under the impression that this is al= ready there and I am just not aware, but looking deeper indeed I do not s= ee this marking neither in ISIS nor OSP=46 for prefix SIDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there some work in progress to add it to those p= rotocols or have we just documented need=C2=A0for a short LSR draft=C2=A0= =3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thx, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On =46ri, Aug 14, 2020 at 6:17 PM Ketan Talaulikar = (ketant) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check inline below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: Robert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: 14 August 2020 21:13 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; Joel M. Halpern ; Shraddha Hegde ; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com ; spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - det= ermining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ketan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I completely agree with your note the conse= quences of it are pretty sevre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5BKT=5D I understand. We need to be mindful of i= mplications of protection schemes for the SLAs/intent of SR Policies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless we signal which prefix SID is protection e= ligible and which is not how would other nodes know if they can protect i= t or not =3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5BKT=5D Correct. To be more accurate, we need to= consider this more in the context of SLA or =E2=80=9Cintent=E2=80=9D of = SR Policies and which segments may be =E2=80=9Cbypass-able=E2=80=9D for l= ocal protection for some of those SR Policies. We also have path-protecti= on mechanisms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that today's safe thing is not to apply = any node protection on SR flows at the PLRs then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And link protection MUST assure that packets will= arrive at the neighbor node via some other link regardless of further pa= th towards destination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5BKT=5D Yes. We have a mechanism to indicate whi= ch adj-SIDs have protection (that mechanism only provides link protection= to get to the neighbor node) so the SR Policy computation is able to ind= icate whether that specific link is =E2=80=9Cbypass-able=E2=80=9D or not = by its choice of protected or unprotected adj-SIDs respectively. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it correct =3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On =46ri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ketan Talaulika= r (ketant) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sasha, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The service node advertises its own Prefix SID.= . The service function that this service node implements does not require= any context (i.e. all packets arriving at the node are subjected to that= service). Therefore the service node does not need to receive a packet w= ith it=E2=80=99s own Prefix SID. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, we cannot assume that when PHP is used, t= hen the SID is only associated with a topological instruction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope that clarifies=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: Alexander Vainshtein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: 14 August 2020 20:24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern ; Shraddha Hegde ; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com ; Robert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - d= etermining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ketan, and all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have stated that, IMHO and =46WIW, both Adj-S= IDs and Prefix SIDs that are advertised with PHP can=C2=A0 ONLY represent= topological instructions in SR-MPLS - because the advertising node will = not receive them and therefore can hardly be expected to associate any se= rvice function with them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is complementary to what you have said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope this clarifies my position. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What, if anything, did I miss=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: =46riday, August 14, 2020, 16:23 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Alexander Vainshtein; Joel M. Halpern; Shra= ddha Hegde; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com; Robert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - d= etermining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNA= L sender > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sasha, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the service does not need any additional con= text (e.g. a firewall that just applies locally configured default rules = on it), then I don=E2=80=99t see why PHP could not be done for a Prefix S= ID associated with a service node. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I didn=E2=80=99t follow the point that yo= u were trying to make about Adj-SIDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: Alexander Vainshtein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: 14 August 2020 18:24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern ; Alexander Vainshtein ; Shraddha Hegde ; EXT= -Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com ; R= obert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - d= etermining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the statement =22Prefix SID could be = just a topological instruction or may also be used to steer the flow to a= node which is applying a service function to it=22: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that in SR-MPLS a Node SID that is adve= rtised with PHP aciton can be safely considered as =22just a topological = instruction=22 by the PLR because the originating node will not receive i= t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same applies to Adj-SDIs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My 2c. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: spring on b= ehalf of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: =46riday, August 14, 2020, 15:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Joel M. Halpern; Alexander Vainshtein; Shra= ddha Hegde; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com; Robert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - d= etermining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to share a different perspective o= n this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46irst, thanks to Joel for bringing up the dis= cussion. Clearly we need a well-defined applicability statement for deter= mining applicability of protection for segment used in an SR Policy. Some= of this is captured in =5B1=5D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is about local repair at a PLR. By it's ve= ry nature, the PLR does not have a notion of how =22strict or not=22 is t= he SLA that is being provided by the SR Policy. Awareness of that notion = exists at the SR Policy headend and/or computation-node. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have protected and un-protected variants of = adjacency SIDs to enable the computation to pick or the other based on th= e =22strictness=22 of the SLA requirement for picking that link. We do no= t have such a notion for Prefix SIDs. One can say that we could introduce= signalling (e.g. a B flag) to indicate whether a Prefix SID can be bypas= sed or not. This provides the opportunity for the computation to use one = or the other flavor depending on the nature of the SLA for the SR Policy.= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a problem and a concern in the assumptio= n that PLRs can assume that the currently defined variant of Prefix SIDs = in R=46C8402 (and IGP specs) are =22bypass-able=22. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As Joel and others have brought out, the Prefix= SID could be just a topological instruction or may also be used to steer= the flow to a node which is applying a service function to it. In order = to support a mix of SR Policies of different SLAs (strict and not-strict)= , we need to enable the choice of SIDs that indicates to the PLR whether = they are =22bypass-able=22 or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46or the cases, where the SR Policy has a spec= ific SLA, it is required for nodes to drop the packets meant for the =22a= ctive segment=22 than to bypass it. When this mechanism is used along sid= e SRTE path monitoring mechanisms, it enables the headend to detect the f= ailure and fallback to an alternate path using the path protection approa= ch. This is something that is described and in use in deployments today =5B= 1=5D.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5B1=5D https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Y3fWuN=46= YCjMJUiiAiWwUms6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46tools.ietf.org%2=46html%2=46dr= aft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08%23section-9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5B2=5D https://clicktime.symantec.com/36fCMrgm= EewC4a4AJRrmn7H6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46tools.ietf.org%2=46html%2=46dr= aft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08%23section-9.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =46rom: spring On B= ehalf Of Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: 04 August 2020 20:25 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Shraddha Hegde ; EX= T-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com ; = Robert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: spring=40ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - d= etermining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are, as far as I can tell, a number of wa= ys to address this family of related questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What struck me, and prompted the starting quest= ion, was that none of them were spelled out.=C2=A0 I see lots of interest= ing ideas / proposals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of them are compatible with others.=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Some are not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be good if we could reach agreement on= how we thought it should be handled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/4/2020 3:54 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote= : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am still not sure that the problem of bypas= s going thru undesirable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > links/nodes exists in the case of topological= SIDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A=46AIK, =46acility Protection in RSVP-TE =46= RR (R=46C 4090 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = ) has been successfully deployed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for many years before SR-MPLS has been introd= uced. What=E2=80=99s more, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signaling of bypass tunnels he PLR usually di= d not include any of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constraints used for computing of any specifi= c LSP that the bypass LSP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would protect =E2=80=93 because in the =46aci= lity Protection mode the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bypass LSP would be used to protect multiple = LSPs passing thru the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failed link/node. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0 =46rom my POV the only difference betwe= en this behavior and that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > introduced by the =E2=80=9Cbypassing=E2=80=9D= drafts in SR is that, in the case of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RSVP-TE, the operator would explicitly indica= te, as part of LSP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signaling, whether it would or would not use = =46RR; LSPs that would not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use =46RR would then drop traffic rather than= delivering it the wrong way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such an option indeed does not exist in SR-TE= today, but would be easy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to provide if so desired IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I miss something substantial=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Office: +972-39266302 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cell:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 +972-5492= 66302 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Email:=C2=A0=C2=A0 Alexander.Vainshtein=40eci= tele.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *=46rom:* spring = *On Behalf Of *Shraddha Hegde > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 4, 2020 9:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *To:* EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ; Robert R= aszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Cc:* spring=40ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection= - determining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a very interesting discussion and tha= nks to Joel for starting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this discussion. IMO, when there are strict r= equirements of avoiding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain nodes/links it can be realized=C2=A0 = either by defining a flex-algo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoiding those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nodes and links or by using a stack of unprot= ected adj-sids that avoid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > restricted nodes and links. When a stack of a= dj-sids is used to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > realize the path, the head-end based (sB=46D)= protection mechanisms can be applied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If Node-sids/prefix-sid/anycast-sids are used= to build the stack, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure events may cause traffic to go throug= h restricted nodes and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > links. This would happen regardless of whethe= r any kind of protection > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is in use or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rgds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shraddha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *=46rom:* spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *On Behal= f Of *Andrew Alston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 4, 2020 5:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *To:* Robert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Cc:* spring=40ietf.org ; Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection= - determining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *=5BExternal Email. Be cautious of content=5D= * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert this is actually far more difficult wh= en =E2=80=93 it can be an entire > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (long) series of nodes that need to be avoide= d. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It could potentially be made to work but I=E2= =80=99d worry that to do this =E2=80=93 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you=E2=80=99d have to stack 10 =E2=80=93 20 =E2= =80=93 30 negative labels =E2=80=93 and that wouldn=E2=80=99t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be viable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It=E2=80=99s easier to use algorithms and adj= acency sids and other such things > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to calculate paths =E2=80=93 the biggest tric= k is about the stack depth.=C2=A0 When > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have this need for node avoidance =E2=80=93= the need for 10+ label depth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is critical =E2=80=93 unless you wanna be app= lying one hell of a lot of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > binding labels along the way which is a night= mare. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But to answer your question, is this a common= use case =E2=80=93 it=E2=80=99s a use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case that most of the people I discuss this w= ith certain have =E2=80=93 I cant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment on a global scale, or for anyone else= , but every indication I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have is that yes =E2=80=93 its something peop= le need, and want > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *=46rom:* Robert Raszuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 4 August 2020 01:27 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *To:* Andrew Alston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Cc:* Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > > >; spring=40iet= f.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection= - determining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a common use case ie.=C2=A0 =22but ra= ther =E2=80=93 which nodes / network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments it can never touch or flow through.=22= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so perhaps its time to define notion of *n= egative-SID* ie. list in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the packet resources which given=C2=A0packet = MUST not ever traverse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Put in the packet set of nodes or links which= the packet should never > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > traverse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That goes in line of recent wave of negative = routing implementations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (RI=46T) or discussions (LSR) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 11:46 PM Andrew Alston= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > w= rote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 So =E2=80=93 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 One of the use cases,= in fact, some very major use cases in any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 spring technology for= us revolve around the following > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 a.The explicit avoida= nce of certain nodes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 b.The explicit avoida= nce of certain sections of the network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Anything that could r= esult in that explicit avoidance being violated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =E2=80=93 would creat= e, shall we say significant problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Much of the use case = is not a case of which nodes the packets flow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 through =E2=80=93 but= rather =E2=80=93 which nodes / network segments it can never > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 touch or flow through= .=C2=A0 Effectively, to be used as a technology to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 avoid certain things = for specific reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 This is also one of t= he reasons for needing such deep label stacks =E2=80=93 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 this kind of detailed= path programming tends to deepen the stack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 because you sometimes= have to be pretty explicit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 It is absolutely crit= ical to us that this functionality is there =E2=80=93 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 and that we can avoid= situations which could cause traffic to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 accidently hit things= explicitly avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 I wish I could be mor= e specific than this, but it is what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 *=46rom:* spring > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > *On Behalf Of *Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 *Sent:* Monday, 3 Aug= ust 2020 21:36 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 *To:* Robert Raszuk <= robert=40raszuk.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 *Cc:* spring=40ietf..= org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 *Subject:* Re: =5Bspr= ing=5D Spring protection - determining > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 (Since the thread has= gotten long enough, reiterating that this is as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 participant, not a WG= chair.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Yes, we are talking I= P networks. And yes, I have seen IP networks that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 choose to drop packet= s. =46or all sorts of reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 I think there are lik= ely other reasons why one may not want a random > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 path rather than a ch= osen TE path. I think it is important we be clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 about what constraint= s may be / are violated when we tell people they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 have this tool (prote= ctive rerouting) that is intended to preserve QoS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Let's be clear. I am = not arguing that this is not a good idea. It is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 good idea. And useful= . I am trying to figure otu what combination of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 additional mechanisms= and clear descriptions will lead to everyone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 getting the behavior = they expect (which may not be the behavior they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 desire, but sometimes= is the best we can do.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Joel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 On 8/3/2020 2:30 PM, = Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Joel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Are we still = talking about IP networks=C2=A0here =3F Or perhaps some hard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > slicing with = real resource reservations or detnets =3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Because=C2=A0= if we are talking=C2=A0about IP networking I have two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 observations: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > A) If you nee= d to traverse via a specific node (ie. firewall) you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 better > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > apply IP enca= psulation to that node.. I don't think IP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 encapsulation=C2=A0ca= n > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > be hijacked t= oday such that destination address of the packet is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ignored. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > B) Have you s= een any IP network where upon topology change (link > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 or node > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > failure) you = suddenly=C2=A0start dropping=C2=A0flows in spite of SPT offering > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > perhaps few m= s longer path with 10 ms more jitter =3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Or are some S= R marketing slides promise to turn IP networks in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > something=C2=A0= new =3F Worse ... do they mention path quality guarantees, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > resource rese= rvations=C2=A0=3F I hope not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Thx, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > On Mon, Aug 3= , 2020 at 8:10 PM Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Well less ser= ious for TE SIDs, I am not sure the problem is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 restricted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > to just servi= ce SIDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Suppose that = the PCE has specified the path to meet some complex te > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > objective.=C2= =A0 The bypass node has no way of knowing what those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > constraints > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > were.=C2=A0 A= nd for some kinds of traffic, it is better to drop the packet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > than to deliv= er it outside the envelop.=C2=A0 I suspect that the right > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > answer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > to this is =22= too bad=22..=C2=A0 If so, as with the distinction regarding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 service > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > nodes, we sho= uld say so, shouldn't we=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > Joel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > On 8/3/2020 2= :36 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Mach, Joel = and all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > I think tha= t in most cases: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > 1.There is = clear differentiation between =22topological=22 and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =22service=22 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > instruction= s in SID advertisements. E.g.: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > oIGP Prefix= Node SIDs IGP Adj-SIDs (identified as such in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > correspondi= ng IGP advertisements) represent topological > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 instructions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > oService SI= Ds for SRv6 (see SRv6 BGP-Based Overlay Services > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > draft) unsu= rprisingly represent =E2=80=9Cservice=E2=80=9D instructions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > 2.Segments = that represent topological instructions can be bypassed, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > while segme= nts that represent service instructions require > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > alternative > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > protection = mechanisms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > This view s= eems to be aligned with R=46C 8402 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 that says in Section = 1: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 In the context of an IGP-based distributed control plane, two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > topological= segments are defined: the IGP-Adjacency segment and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 IGP-Prefix segment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 In the context of a BGP-based distributed control plane, two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > topological= segments are defined: the BGP peering segment and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 BGP-Prefix segment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > In the case= of SR-MPLS this differentiation is assumed in Section > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > 3.4 of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > the Node Pr= otection for SR-TE Path > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > draft that = says: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 The node protection mechanism described in the previous > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 sections > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 depends on the assumption that the label immediately below > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > the top > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > label in th= e label stack is understood in the IGP domain.=C2=A0 When the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 provider edge routers exchange service labels via BGP or some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 non-IGP mechanism the bottom label is not understood in the IGP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 The egress node protection mechanisms described in the draft > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =5BR=46C8679 > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >=5D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > applicable = to this use case and no additional changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 will be required for SR based networks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > The scenari= os in which =C2=A0differentiation between =E2=80=9Ctopological=E2=80=9D a= nd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > =E2=80=9Cse= rvice=E2=80=9D instructions is broken are indeed problematic. E.g., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > consider > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > the use cas= e in which a Node SID in the ERO of a SR-TE path > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > identifies a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > node that a= cts as a firewall for all packets it receives, i.e., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > provides > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > the firewal= l service without any dedicated service SID > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > identifying i= t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > One could s= ay that the Node SID of such a node would combine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > topological > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > and service= instructions thus breaking the differentiation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > between the t= wo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > I am not su= re if usage of such =E2=80=9Ccombined=E2=80=9D SIDs could be prevented > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > or at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > least disco= uraged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > If not, pro= viding an ability to identify such SIDs in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > advertisement= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > mechanisms = would be useful IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > My 2c, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Office: +97= 2-39266302 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Cell:=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 +972-549266302 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Email: Alex= ander.Vainshtein=40ecitele.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > -----Origin= al Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > =46rom: spr= ing > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > On Behalf Of Mach Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Sent: Monda= y, August 3, 2020 6:30 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > To: Joel M.= Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Subject: Re= : =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Hi Joel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > I think thi= s is a good point that may not be discussed in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > past. And > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > I also don'= t think there is a =22can be bypassed=22 indication in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > routing adv= ertisement for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > IMHO, the i= nformation advertised by routing is neutral, such > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > (can or can= not be bypassed) is more path specific, thus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 normally the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > controller = should be responsible for deciding whether/which SID > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > bypassed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Best regard= s, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Mach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > ---= --Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > =46= rom: spring =5Bmailto:spring-bounces=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =5D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 On Behalf Of Joel M. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > Hal= pern > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > Sen= t: Monday, August 3, 2020 7:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > To:= spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > Sub= ject: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > (WG= Chair hat Off, this is merely a note from a slightly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > confused WG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > par= ticipant.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > I h= ave been reading the various repair drafts, and the various > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > net= works programming and service programming draft, and I am > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > trying to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > fig= ure out one aspect of the combination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > How= does a node that is doing some form of bypass (suppose, for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > sim= plicity, it is Node N2 deciding to bypass the next SID for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > a failed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > nod= e N3) know that it is safe to do so=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > If = the path was just for TE, then it is =22safe=22 if the new path > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > meets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > the= TE criteria.=C2=A0 or maybe it is safe if it is even close, as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > long as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > it = is not used for too long. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > But= what if the node were a =46irewall, included to meet legal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > requirement= s=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > Or = was some other necessary programmatic transform (wince we are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > del= iberately vague about what nodes can do when asked suitably.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > Is = there some =22can be bypassed=22 indication in the routing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > adv= ertisements that I missed=3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > Tha= nk you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > You= rs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > Joe= l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > =5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > spr= ing mailing list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > spr= ing=40ietf..org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://clicktime.sym= antec.com/367qhU4KiUkzW9uGC4eAvP46H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 > =46= %2=46www.ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 >%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > =5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > spring mail= ing list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > spring=40ie= tf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://clicktime.sym= antec.com/367qhU4KiUkzW9uGC4eAvP46H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46www.ietf.org= %2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ---------------------= --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > Notice: Thi= s e-mail together with any attachments may contain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > information= of Ribbon Communications Inc. that is confidential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > and/or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > proprietary= for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > disclosure,= reliance or distribution by others or forwarding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 without > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > express per= mission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > intended > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > recipient, = please notify the sender immediately and then delete all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > copies, inc= luding any attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ---------------------= --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > =5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > spring mail= ing list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > spring=40ie= tf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > https://cli= cktime.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyVPByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46ww= w.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > spring mailin= g list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > spring=40ietf= .org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > https://click= time.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyVPByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46www.= ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 spring mailing list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://clicktime.sym= antec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyVPByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46www.ietf.org= %2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2=46%2=46urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttp= s%3A%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nfo%2=46spring=5F=5F%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0= Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqgu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo5KlPnbj%24> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------= ------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice: This e-mail together with any attachm= ents may contain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information of Ribbon Communications Inc. tha= t is confidential and/or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary for the sole use of the intended = recipient. Any review, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disclosure, reliance or distribution by other= s or forwarding without > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > express permission is strictly prohibited. If= you are not the intended > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > recipient, please notify the sender immediate= ly and then delete all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > copies, including any attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------= ------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spring mailing list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyV= PByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%= 2=46spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spring mailing list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyV= PByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%= 2=46spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice: This e-mail together with any attachmen= ts may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. that is confiden= tial and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any r= eview, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding witho= ut express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended= recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copi= es, including any attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spring mailing list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F > > > > > > > > > > > > spring mailing list > > > > > > > > > > > > spring=40ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Gyan Mishra > > > > Network Solutions Architect > > > > M 301 502-1347 > > > > 13101 Columbia Pike > > > > Silver Spring, MD > > > > --5f3afc99_66ef438d_65d7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Robert,

=22possession of enough information in PLR=E2=80=9D what do you call this= , if not more state, given this information is not present there today=3F=

Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 17, 2020, 2:25 PM -0700, Rob= ert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.net>, wrote:
Hi Jeff,

This is not about more state in the network nor about&=23160;includi= ng mirror service node in the backup path for some flows.&=23160;

The thread is about possession of enough information in PLR to eithe= r take the packet and shift it over backup path or just drop it.&=23160;<= /div>

- - -

Btw - path protection is completely orthogonal to the above.&=23160;=

Cheers,
Robert.


On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 1= 1:03 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf=40gmail.com> wrote:
Gyan,

TI-L=46A computation is local to the PLR and is topology dependent, e.g c= hange in downstream topology could/would influence the choice of MP (PQ) = node.
While an implementation could take into consideration some additional met= a-data (e.g. locally provisioned SRLG, usually used to avoid protected an= d protecting ports on the same line card), this is not a standardized met= hod.&=23160;&=23160;
If a service node must be included in a backup path, there=E2=80=99s a st= ate associated with it as well as distribution of the state involved.&=23= 160;

Back to my point, removing state and introducing services in the network = (at the very least at the computational logic and head-end level) are mut= ually exclusive, trade-offs are inevitable (You can't eat your cake and h= ave it).
Keeping the state limited to:
- a logically centralized computational logic (aka PCE) - off path, scale= s horizontally, could use additional business logic for the path computat= ion, example - CPU/memory consumption on a service node
- head-end - anchor to primary/backup paths
seems like a reasonable set of trade-offs.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 14, 2020, 7:44 PM -0700, Gya= n Mishra <hayabusagsm=40gmail.com>, wrote:

Catching up on this thread as it is a interesting t= opic as =46RR 1:N link protection, node protection and path protection is= critical to operators.

There are multiple somewhat orthogonal topics broug= ht up in the discussion.

Excluding SR S=46C from =E2=80=9Cbypass=E2=80=9D ca= pable node such for appliances such as firewalls and load balancer.&=2316= 0; Makes sense.&=23160; I would not think S=46C would be in a PLR path to= merger point but I could be mistaken.

The goal of SR is eliminating state and so having T= E like state is undesirable.&=23160;

Intent based instantiation of bypass via SR-TE from= network feedback at PLR detection node of a failure and make before brea= k pre computed backup paths that can. &=23160;&=23160;

It would make sense that SR-TE binding SID policy w= ould be appropriate for RSVP like =46RR link node or path protection.

My thoughts on this topic of SR protection is that = don=E2=80=99t we already have =46RR protection natively without requiring= SR-TE BSID or any additional undesirable state maintenance with TI-L=46A= .

Thanks&=23160;

Gyan

On =46ri, Aug 14, 2020 at= 5:47 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf=40gmail.com> wrote:












PCE computation in this case is trivial too(must tr= averse node B or node X) else =46AIL.







Cheers,

Jeff






On Aug 14, 2020, 2:44 PM -0700, Jef= f Tantsura <jefftant.ietf=40gmail.com>, wrote:






Robert,





Agreed and apologies, hit send before finishing the email (it is =46riday= ) ;-)





Path protection in this case make more sense and is much less complex,&=23= 160;


if in the pathA (A->B->C) node B is a service node, it can=E2=80=99= t be bypassed (node protected) if the link between A and B breaks&=23160;=


however it could have a backup pathB (A->X->C) where X is the servi= ce node, potentially synchronizing its state with the node B.





To my previous email - at expense of more state, we provide path and serv= ice protection, hence the similarity with RSVP-TE trade-offs.







Cheers,

Jeff






On Aug 14, 2020, 2:30 PM -0700, Rob= ert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.net>, wrote:




Jeff,




> This is very similar to RSVP-TE&=23160;&=23160;





I would rather differ on that statement.&=23160;





See if you are using SR just for TE you are 100% right.&=23160;




But if your SIDs embed additional local SR node processing functions= this suddenly&=23160;becomes a completely different game. Let's keep thi= s in mind in this thread/topic.&=23160;





Kind regards,


R.












On =46ri, Aug 14, 2020 at= 11:15 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf=40gmail.com> wrote:








This is very similar to RSVP-TE, path vs link/node = protection and usually dictated by the business logic, the triggers are o= bviously very different, head-end being notified of the failure on a path= and switching to the backup path vs reaction to a local failure, so same= considerations apply:&=23160;


-more state


-pre-reserved resources


while&=23160;


-predictable


-meets SLA (as good as primary)


vs


-less state


-local


-best effort / can cause congestions&=23160;







Cheers,

Jeff






On Aug 14, 2020, 10:46 AM -0700, Ke= tan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=3D40cisco.com=40dmarc.ietf.org&= gt;, wrote:






Hi Robert,



&=23160;



We do not have a signalling mechanism in= IGPs today to indicate a =E2=80=9Cbypass-able=E2=80=9D indication for Pr= efix SIDs. If there was a desire for it, an IGP extension would be requir= ed (there is none in progress A=46AIK). Note that this results in doublin= g the prefix SID scale (global labels) in the network. So I would not go = about this trivially.



&=23160;



I think it helps to get more inputs and = perspectives from operators on their views for doing a bypass via local p= rotection for segments in an SR Policy. There may be those that prefer en= d-to-end path protection using a fallback path that is say disjoint with = the primary but provides an appropriate SLA/intent=3F



&=23160;



Thanks,



Ketan



&=23160;





=46rom: R= obert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.net>


Sent: 14 August 2020 23:04


To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com>


Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein=40rbbn.com= >; Joel M. Halpern <jmh=40joelhalpern.com>; Shraddha Hegde &l= t;s= hraddha=40juniper.net>; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtele= com.com <Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com>; spring=40ietf.= org


Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicab= ility





&=23160;





Ketan,





&=23160;







Looks like we are pretty much in sync here.&=23= 160;







&=23160;







But let me just observe that I purposely&=2316= 0;did not mention about SR policies as we are not able to signal the inte= nt with the packets itself.&=23160;







&=23160;







So all we have there is SIDs. BSIDs or prefix = SIDs need to be flooded with information if policies build with using the= m are bypass eligible or not.&=23160;







&=23160;







I was actually under the impression that this = is already there and I am just not aware, but looking deeper indeed I do = not see this marking neither in ISIS nor OSP=46 for prefix SIDs.&=23160;<= /p>





&=23160;







Is there some work in progress to add it to th= ose protocols or have we just documented need&=23160;for a short LSR draf= t&=23160; =3F&=23160;







&=23160;







Thx,







R.







&=23160;







&=23160;







On =46ri, Aug 14, 2020 at 6:17 PM Ketan Talaul= ikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com> wrote:











Hi Robert,



&=23160;



Please check inline below.



&=23160;





=46rom: R= obert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.net>


Sent: 14 August 2020 21:13


To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com>


Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein=40rbbn.com= >; Joel M. Halpern <jmh=40joelhalpern.com>; Shraddha Hegde &l= t;s= hraddha=40juniper.net>; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtele= com.com <Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com>; spring=40ietf.= org


Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicab= ility





&=23160;





Hi Ketan,





&=23160;







While I completely agree with your note the co= nsequences of it are pretty sevre.&=23160;



=5BKT=5D I understand. We need to be min= dful of implications of protection schemes for the SLAs/intent of SR Poli= cies.







&=23160;







Unless we signal which prefix SID is protectio= n eligible and which is not how would other nodes know if they can protec= t it or not =3F&=23160;



=5BKT=5D Correct. To be more accurate, w= e need to consider this more in the context of SLA or =E2=80=9Cintent=E2=80= =9D of SR Policies and which segments may be =E2=80=9Cbypass-able=E2=80=9D= for local protection for some of those SR Policies. We also have path-pr= otection mechanisms.







&=23160;







It seems that today's safe thing is not to app= ly any node protection on SR flows at the PLRs then.&=23160;







&=23160;







And link protection MUST assure that packets w= ill arrive at the neighbor node via some other link regardless of further= path towards destination.&=23160;



=5BKT=5D Yes. We have a mechanism to ind= icate which adj-SIDs have protection (that mechanism only provides link p= rotection to get to the neighbor node) so the SR Policy computation is ab= le to indicate whether that specific link is =E2=80=9Cbypass-able=E2=80=9D= or not by its choice of protected or unprotected adj-SIDs respectively.<= /i>



&=23160;



Thanks,



Ketan







&=23160;







Is it correct =3F&=23160;







&=23160;







Thx







R







&=23160;







On =46ri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ketan Talaul= ikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com> wrote:











Hi Sasha,



&=23160;



The service node advertises its own Prefix SID= .. The service function that this service node implements does not requir= e any context (i.e. all packets arriving at the node are subjected to tha= t service). Therefore the service node does not need to receive a packet = with it=E2=80=99s own Prefix SID.



&=23160;



Thus, we cannot assume that when PHP is used, = then the SID is only associated with a topological instruction.



&=23160;



Hope that clarifies=3F



&=23160;



Thanks,



Ketan



&=23160;







=46rom: A= lexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein=40rbbn.com>


Sent: 14 August 2020 20:24


To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com>; Joel M. Hal= pern <jmh=40joelhalpern.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.ne= t>; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com <Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.= net>


Cc: spring=40ietf.org


Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicab= ility







&=23160;



Ketan, and all,



I have stated that, IMHO and =46WIW, both Adj-SIDs= and Prefix SIDs that are advertised with PHP can&=23160; ONLY represent = topological instructions in SR-MPLS - because the advertising node will n= ot receive them and therefore can hardly be expected to associate any ser= vice function with them.



&=23160;



This is complementary to what you have said.



&=23160;



Hope this clarifies my position.



What, if anything, did I miss=3F



&=23160;



Regards,



Sasha







&=23160;





Get Outlook for Android









&=23160;











=46rom: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisc= o.com>


Sent: =46riday, August 14, 2020, 16:23


To: Alexander Vainshtein; Joel M. Halpern; Shraddha Hegde; E= XT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com; Robert Raszuk


Cc: sp= ring=40ietf.org


Subject: RE: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicability=





&=23160;







NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERN= AL sender







&=23160;





Hi Sasha,



&=23160;



If the service does not need any additional co= ntext (e.g. a firewall that just applies locally configured default rules= on it), then I don=E2=80=99t see why PHP could not be done for a Prefix = SID associated with a service node.



&=23160;



Also, I didn=E2=80=99t follow the point that y= ou were trying to make about Adj-SIDs.



&=23160;



Thanks,



Ketan



&=23160;







=46rom: A= lexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein=40rbbn.com>


Sent: 14 August 2020 18:24


To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com>; Joel M. Hal= pern <jmh=40joelhalpern.com>; Alexander Vainshtein <Alexand= er.Vainshtein=40rbbn.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.net<= /a>>; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com <Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.net= >


Cc: spring=40ietf.org


Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicab= ility







&=23160;



Hi all,



Regarding the statement =22Prefix SID could be jus= t a topological instruction or may also be used to steer the flow to a no= de which is applying a service function to it=22:



&=23160;



&=23160;



I think that in SR-MPLS a Node SID that is adverti= sed with PHP aciton can be safely considered as =22just a topological ins= truction=22 by the PLR because the originating node will not receive it.<= /span>



The same applies to Adj-SDIs.



&=23160;



My 2c.







&=23160;





Get Outlook for Android









&=23160;











=46rom: spring <spring-bounces=40ietf.org= > on behalf of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=3D= 40cisco.com=40dmarc.ietf.org>


Sent: =46riday, August 14, 2020, 15:00


To: Joel M. Halpern; Alexander Vainshtein; Shraddha Hegde; E= XT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com; Robert Raszuk


Cc: sp= ring=40ietf.org


Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicability=





&=23160;





Hi All,





I would like to share a different perspective on this.





=46irst, thanks to Joel for bringing up the discussion. Clearly we need a= well-defined applicability statement for determining applicability of pr= otection for segment used in an SR Policy. Some of this is captured in =5B= 1=5D.





This is about local repair at a PLR. By it's very nature, the PLR does no= t have a notion of how =22strict or not=22 is the SLA that is being provi= ded by the SR Policy. Awareness of that notion exists at the SR Policy he= adend and/or computation-node.





We have protected and un-protected variants of adjacency SIDs to enable t= he computation to pick or the other based on the =22strictness=22 of the = SLA requirement for picking that link. We do not have such a notion for P= refix SIDs. One can say that we could introduce signalling (e.g. a B flag= ) to indicate whether a Prefix SID can be bypassed or not. This provides = the opportunity for the computation to use one or the other flavor depend= ing on the nature of the SLA for the SR Policy.





I have a problem and a concern in the assumption that PLRs can assume tha= t the currently defined variant of Prefix SIDs in R=46C8402 (and IGP spec= s) are =22bypass-able=22.





As Joel and others have brought out, the Prefix SID could be just a topol= ogical instruction or may also be used to steer the flow to a node which = is applying a service function to it. In order to support a mix of SR Pol= icies of different SLAs (strict and not-strict), we need to enable the ch= oice of SIDs that indicates to the PLR whether they are =22bypass-able=22= or not.





=46or the cases, where the SR Policy has a specific SLA, it is required f= or nodes to drop the packets meant for the =22active segment=22 than to b= ypass it. When this mechanism is used along side SRTE path monitoring mec= hanisms, it enables the headend to detect the failure and fallback to an = alternate path using the path protection approach. This is something that= is described and in use in deployments today =5B1=5D..





Thanks,


Ketan





=5B1=5D htt= ps://clicktime.symantec.com/3Y3fWuN=46YCjMJUiiAiWwUms6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2= =46%2=46tools.ietf.org%2=46html%2=46draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-pol= icy-08%23section-9


=5B2=5D htt= ps://clicktime.symantec.com/36fCMrgmEewC4a4AJRrmn7H6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46= %2=46tools.ietf.org%2=46html%2=46draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy= -08%23section-9.3





-----Original Message-----


=46rom: spring <spring-bounces=40ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel M.= Halpern


Sent: 04 August 2020 20:25


To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein=40rbbn.com>= ;; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=3D40juniper.net=40dmarc.ie= tf.org>; EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com <= ;Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert=40= raszuk.net>


Cc: spri= ng=40ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern <jmh=40joelhalpern.com>


Subject: Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicability




There are, as far as I can tell, a number of ways to address this family = of related questions.


What struck me, and prompted the starting question, was that none of them= were spelled out.&=23160; I see lots of interesting ideas / proposals.

Some of them are compatible with others.&=23160;&=23160; Some are not.

It would be good if we could reach agreement on how we thought it should = be handled.





Thank you,


Joel





On 8/4/2020 3:54 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:


> Hi all,


>


> I am still not sure that the problem of bypass going thru undesirabl= e


> links/nodes exists in the case of topological SIDs.


>


> A=46AIK, =46acility Protection in RSVP-TE =46RR (R=46C 4090


> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Q92knE9XJujrf8Bk7oJvs= 6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46tools.ietf.org%2=46html%2=46rfc4090>) = has been successfully deployed


> for many years before SR-MPLS has been introduced. What=E2=80=99s mo= re,


> signaling of bypass tunnels he PLR usually did not include any of th= e


> constraints used for computing of any specific LSP that the bypass L= SP


> would protect =E2=80=93 because in the =46acility Protection mode th= e same


> bypass LSP would be used to protect multiple LSPs passing thru the

> failed link/node.


>


>&=23160; =46rom my POV the only difference between this behavior and = that


> introduced by the =E2=80=9Cbypassing=E2=80=9D drafts in SR is that, = in the case of


> RSVP-TE, the operator would explicitly indicate, as part of LSP


> signaling, whether it would or would not use =46RR; LSPs that would = not


> use =46RR would then drop traffic rather than delivering it the wron= g way.


>


> Such an option indeed does not exist in SR-TE today, but would be ea= sy


> to provide if so desired IMHO.


>


> Did I miss something substantial=3F


>


> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,


>


> Sasha


>


> Office: +972-39266302


>


> Cell:&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; +972-549266302


>


> Email:&=23160;&=23160; Alexander.Vainshtein=40ecitele.com


>


> *=46rom:* spring <spring-bounces=40ietf.org> *On Behalf Of = *Shraddha Hegde


> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 4, 2020 9:41 AM


> *To:* EXT-Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com


> <Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com>; Robert Raszuk &= lt;rob= ert=40raszuk.net>


> *Cc:* spring=40ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern <jmh=40joelhalpern.com>


> *Subject:* Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicab= ility


>


> All,


>


> This is a very interesting discussion and thanks to Joel for startin= g


> this discussion. IMO, when there are strict requirements of avoiding=


> certain nodes/links it can be realized&=23160; either by defining a = flex-algo


> avoiding those


>


> Nodes and links or by using a stack of unprotected adj-sids that avo= id


> restricted nodes and links. When a stack of adj-sids is used to


> realize the path, the head-end based (sB=46D) protection mechanisms = can be applied.


>


> If Node-sids/prefix-sid/anycast-sids are used to build the stack, th= e


> failure events may cause traffic to go through restricted nodes and<= br />

> links. This would happen regardless of whether any kind of protectio= n


> is in use or not.


>


> Rgds


>


> Shraddha


>


> Juniper Business Use Only


>


> *=46rom:* spring <spring-bounces=40ietf.org
 > = <mailto:spring-bounces=40ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Al= ston


> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 4, 2020 5:41 AM


> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.net <mailto:robert=40raszuk.net>>


> *Cc:* spring=40ietf.org <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>; Joel M. Halpern


> <jmh=40joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh=40joelhalpern.com>>

> *Subject:* Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicab= ility


>


> *=5BExternal Email. Be cautious of content=5D*


>


> Robert this is actually far more difficult when =E2=80=93 it can be = an entire


> (long) series of nodes that need to be avoided.


>


> It could potentially be made to work but I=E2=80=99d worry that to d= o this =E2=80=93


> you=E2=80=99d have to stack 10 =E2=80=93 20 =E2=80=93 30 negative la= bels =E2=80=93 and that wouldn=E2=80=99t


> be viable.


>


> It=E2=80=99s easier to use algorithms and adjacency sids and other s= uch things


> to calculate paths =E2=80=93 the biggest trick is about the stack de= pth.&=23160; When


> you have this need for node avoidance =E2=80=93 the need for 10+ lab= el depth


> is critical =E2=80=93 unless you wanna be applying one hell of a lot= of


> binding labels along the way which is a nightmare.


>


> But to answer your question, is this a common use case =E2=80=93 it=E2= =80=99s a use


> case that most of the people I discuss this with certain have =E2=80= =93 I cant


> comment on a global scale, or for anyone else, but every indication = I


> have is that yes =E2=80=93 its something people need, and want
=

>


> Andrew


>


> *=46rom:* Robert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.net <mailto:robert=40raszuk.net= >>


> *Sent:* Tuesday, 4 August 2020 01:27


> *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.= com
 > <mailto:Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com>>


> *Cc:* Joel M. Halpern <jmh=40joelhalpern.com
 > <= ;mai= lto:jmh=40joelhalpern.com>>; spring=40ietf.org


> <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


> *Subject:* Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicab= ility


>


> Is this a common use case ie.&=23160; =22but rather =E2=80=93 which = nodes / network


> segments it can never touch or flow through.=22


>


> If so perhaps its time to define notion of *negative-SID* ie. list i= n


> the packet resources which given&=23160;packet MUST not ever travers= e.


>


> Put in the packet set of nodes or links which the packet should neve= r


> traverse.


>


> That goes in line of recent wave of negative routing implementations=


> (RI=46T) or discussions (LSR)


>


> Best,


> R.


>


> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 11:46 PM Andrew Alston


> <Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com
 > &= lt;mailto:Andrew.Alston=40liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; So =E2=80=93


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; One of the use cases, in fact, some = very major use cases in any


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; spring technology for us revolve aro= und the following


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; a.The explicit avoidance of certain = nodes


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; b.The explicit avoidance of certain = sections of the network


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; Anything that could result in that e= xplicit avoidance being violated


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; =E2=80=93 would create, shall we say= significant problems.


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; Much of the use case is not a case o= f which nodes the packets flow


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; through =E2=80=93 but rather =E2=80=93= which nodes / network segments it can never


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; touch or flow through.&=23160; Effec= tively, to be used as a technology to


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; avoid certain things for specific re= asons.


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; This is also one of the reasons for = needing such deep label stacks =E2=80=93


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; this kind of detailed path programmi= ng tends to deepen the stack


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; because you sometimes have to be pre= tty explicit.


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; It is absolutely critical to us that= this functionality is there =E2=80=93


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; and that we can avoid situations whi= ch could cause traffic to


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; accidently hit things explicitly avo= ided.


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; I wish I could be more specific than= this, but it is what it is.


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; Thanks


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; Andrew


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; *=46rom:* spring <spring-bounc= es=40ietf.org
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spr= ing-bounces=40ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of *Joel M. Halpern


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; *Sent:* Monday, 3 August 2020 21:36<= br />

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert=40raszuk.net= <mailto:robert=40raszuk.net>>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; *Cc:* spring=40ietf..org <mailto:spring=40ie= tf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; *Subject:* Re: =5Bspring=5D Spring p= rotection - determining


> applicability


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; (Since the thread has gotten long en= ough, reiterating that this is as a


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; participant, not a WG chair.)


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; Yes, we are talking IP networks. And= yes, I have seen IP networks that


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; choose to drop packets. =46or all so= rts of reasons.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; I think there are likely other reaso= ns why one may not want a random


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; path rather than a chosen TE path. I= think it is important we be clear


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; about what constraints may be / are = violated when we tell people they


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; have this tool (protective rerouting= ) that is intended to preserve QoS.


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; Let's be clear. I am not arguing tha= t this is not a good idea. It is a


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; good idea. And useful. I am trying t= o figure otu what combination of


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; additional mechanisms and clear desc= riptions will lead to everyone


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; getting the behavior they expect (wh= ich may not be the behavior they


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; desire, but sometimes is the best we= can do.)


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; Yours,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; Joel


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; On 8/3/2020 2:30 PM, Robert Raszuk w= rote:


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Joel,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Are we still talking ab= out IP networks&=23160;here =3F Or perhaps some hard


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > slicing with real resou= rce reservations or detnets =3F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Because&=23160;if we ar= e talking&=23160;about IP networking I have two


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; observations:


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > A) If you need to trave= rse via a specific node (ie. firewall) you


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; better


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > apply IP encapsulation = to that node.. I don't think IP


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; encapsulation&=23160;can


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > be hijacked today such = that destination address of the packet is


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; ignored.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > B) Have you seen any IP= network where upon topology change (link


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; or node


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > failure) you suddenly&=23= 160;start dropping&=23160;flows in spite of SPT offering


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > perhaps few ms longer p= ath with 10 ms more jitter =3F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Or are some SR marketin= g slides promise to turn IP networks in


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > something&=23160;new =3F= Worse ... do they mention path quality guarantees,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > resource reservations&=23= 160;=3F I hope not.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Thx,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > R.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at = 8:10 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh=40joelhalpern.com
 >&=23160;&=23= 160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:jmh=40joelhalpern.com%20%0b>> &= lt;m= ailto:jmh=40joelhalpern.com>> wrote:


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Well less serious for T= E SIDs, I am not sure the problem is


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; restricted


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > to just service SIDs.

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Suppose that the PCE ha= s specified the path to meet some complex te


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > objective.&=23160; The = bypass node has no way of knowing what those


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > constraints


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > were.&=23160; And for s= ome kinds of traffic, it is better to drop the packet


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > than to deliver it outs= ide the envelop.&=23160; I suspect that the right


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > answer


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > to this is =22too bad=22= ..&=23160; If so, as with the distinction regarding


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; service


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > nodes, we should say so= , shouldn't we=3F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Yours,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > Joel


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > On 8/3/2020 2:36 AM, Al= exander Vainshtein wrote:


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Mach, Joel and all= ,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > I think that in mo= st cases:


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > 1.There is clear d= ifferentiation between =22topological=22 and


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; =22service=22


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > instructions in SI= D advertisements. E.g.:


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > oIGP Prefix Node S= IDs IGP Adj-SIDs (identified as such in the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > corresponding IGP = advertisements) represent topological


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; instructions


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > oService SIDs for = SRv6 (see SRv6 BGP-Based Overlay Services


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3CCcy9mY6cMfbk7Qfjhi= A3R6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46datatracker.ietf.org%2=46doc%2=46html%2=46= draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-04
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23= 160; <https://clickt= ime.symantec.com/3GC5af2z3JzphZDkPncHAQi6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urlde= fense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46datatracker.ietf.org%2=46doc%2=46= html%2=46draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-04=5F=5F%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Y= usx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo4T-L0nl%24&= gt;>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > draft) unsurprisin= gly represent =E2=80=9Cservice=E2=80=9D instructions


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > 2.Segments that re= present topological instructions can be bypassed,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > while segments tha= t represent service instructions require


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > alternative


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > protection mechani= sms.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > This view seems to= be aligned with R=46C 8402


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > <https://clicktime.symantec.com/345NLCB6TydxuuqUjtcDRZy6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A= %2=46%2=46tools.ietf.org%2=46html%2=46rfc8402
 >&=23160;&=231= 60;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktime.symantec.com/37PzUK= AD82cjSvmVcGvpkh=466H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46= =5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46tools.ietf.org%2=46html%2=46rfc8402=5F=5F%3B%21%21NEt6= yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo0I= 4Ybtm%24>>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; that says in Section 1:


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; In the context of an IGP-based distributed control plane, two


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > topological segmen= ts are defined: the IGP-Adjacency segment and the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; IGP-Prefix segment.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; In the context of a BGP-based distributed control plane, two


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > topological segmen= ts are defined: the BGP peering segment and the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; BGP-Prefix segment.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > In the case of SR-= MPLS this differentiation is assumed in Section


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > 3.4 of


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > the Node Protectio= n for SR-TE Path


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktim= e.symantec.com/3JbSWGx5DAfNPsZdhpExxx96H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46datatra= cker.ietf.org%2=46doc%2=46html%2=46draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for= -sr-te-paths-07%23section-3.4
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=231= 60; <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3CrUgARW8somAbw6TisjgJ= 16H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46= datatracker.ietf.org%2=46doc%2=46html%2=46draft-hegde-spring-node-protect= ion-for-sr-te-paths-07%2Asection-3.4=5F=5F%3BIw%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx= 9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo9wO-Ssn%24>= >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > draft that says:

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; The node protection mechanism described in the previous


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; sections


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; depends on the assumption that the label immediately below


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > the top


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > label in the label= stack is understood in the IGP domain.&=23160; When the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; provider edge routers exchange service labels via BGP or some


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > other


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; non-IGP mechanism the bottom label is not understood in the IGP


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; domain.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; The egress node protection mechanisms described in the draft


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; =5BR=46C8679 <https://clicktime.syma= ntec.com/3JfvtBAmaQPN1jA3pM6TdCE6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46datatracker.i= etf.org%2=46doc%2=46html%2=46rfc8679
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=2316= 0;&=23160; <https://clicktime.symantec.com/36= dMAjuYTQovo8jHwmm3eJw6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46= =5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46datatracker.ietf.org%2=46doc%2=46html%2=46rfc8679=5F=5F= %3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOG= t8AkTRDuiDo8MGipXc%24>>=5D


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; is


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > applicable to this= use case and no additional changes


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; &=23160;&=23= 160; will be required for SR based networks


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > The scenarios in w= hich &=23160;differentiation between =E2=80=9Ctopological=E2=80=9D and

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > =E2=80=9Cservice=E2= =80=9D instructions is broken are indeed problematic. E.g.,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > consider


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > the use case in wh= ich a Node SID in the ERO of a SR-TE path


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > identifies a


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > node that acts as = a firewall for all packets it receives, i.e.,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > provides


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > the firewall servi= ce without any dedicated service SID


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > identifying it.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > One could say that= the Node SID of such a node would combine


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > topological


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > and service instru= ctions thus breaking the differentiation


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > between the two.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > I am not sure if u= sage of such =E2=80=9Ccombined=E2=80=9D SIDs could be prevented


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > or at


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > least discouraged.=


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > If not, providing = an ability to identify such SIDs in the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > advertisement


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > mechanisms would b= e useful IMHO.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > My 2c,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Sasha


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Office: +972-39266= 302


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Cell:&=23160;&=231= 60;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; +972-549266302


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Email: Alex= ander.Vainshtein=40ecitele.com


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:Alexander.Vainsh= tein=40ecitele.com>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > <mailto:Ale= xander.Vainshtein=40ecitele.com>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > -----Original Mess= age-----


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > =46rom: spring <= ;spring-bounces=40ietf.org
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=231= 60; <mailto:spring-bounces=40ietf.org%0b>>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spring-bounces=40ietf.org= >> On Behalf Of Mach Chen


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Sent: Monday, Augu= st 3, 2020 6:30 AM


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > To: Joel M. Halper= n <jmh=40joelhalpern.com
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;= <mailto:jmh=40joelhalpern.com%0b>> <mailto:jmh=40joelhalpern.= com>>;


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; spring=40ietf.org <mailto:spring=40ietf.org> <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Subject: Re: =5Bsp= ring=5D Spring protection - determining applicability


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Hi Joel,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > I think this is a = good point that may not be discussed in the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > past. And


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > I also don't think= there is a =22can be bypassed=22 indication in the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > routing advertisem= ent for now.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > IMHO, the informat= ion advertised by routing is neutral, such


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > information


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > (can or cannot be = bypassed) is more path specific, thus


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; normally the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > controller should = be responsible for deciding whether/which SID


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > can be


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > bypassed.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Best regards,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Mach


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > -----= Original Message-----


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > =46ro= m: spring =5Bmailto:spring-bounces=40ietf.org


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > <mailto:spring-bounc= es=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spring-bounces=40ietf.org%0b%3e%20%3cmailto:spring-= bounces=40ietf.org%3e>=5D


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; On Behalf Of Joel M.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > Halpe= rn


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > Sent:= Monday, August 3, 2020 7:51 AM


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > To: <= a href=3D=22mailto:spring=40ietf.org=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22>spring=40= ietf.org <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > <mailto:spring=40ietf.org <mailto:spring=40ietf.org
 >= ;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spring= =40ietf.org%20%3cmailto:spring=40ietf.org>>>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > Subje= ct: =5Bspring=5D Spring protection - determining applicability


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > (WG C= hair hat Off, this is merely a note from a slightly


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > confused WG


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > parti= cipant.)


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > I hav= e been reading the various repair drafts, and the various


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > netwo= rks programming and service programming draft, and I am


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > trying to


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > figur= e out one aspect of the combination.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > How d= oes a node that is doing some form of bypass (suppose, for


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > simpl= icity, it is Node N2 deciding to bypass the next SID for


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > a failed


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > node = N3) know that it is safe to do so=3F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > If th= e path was just for TE, then it is =22safe=22 if the new path


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > meets


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > the T= E criteria.&=23160; or maybe it is safe if it is even close, as


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > long as


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > it is= not used for too long.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > But w= hat if the node were a =46irewall, included to meet legal


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > requirements=3F

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > Or wa= s some other necessary programmatic transform (wince we are


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > delib= erately vague about what nodes can do when asked suitably.)


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > Is th= ere some =22can be bypassed=22 indication in the routing


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > adver= tisements that I missed=3F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > Thank= you,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > Yours= ,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > Joel<= br />

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > =5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > sprin= g mailing list


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > spring=40ietf= ..org <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > <mailto:spring=40ietf.org <mailto:spring=40ietf.org
 >= ;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spring= =40ietf.org%20%3cmailto:spring=40ietf.org>>>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; >
=

>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; https://clicktime.symantec.com/367qhU4KiUkzW9uGC4eAvP46H2=3Fu=3Dh= ttps%3A%2


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Q7vX2qWSUdWVc892X= uXy2H6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttps%3A= %2=46clicktime.symantec.com%2=46367qhU4KiUkzW9uGC4eAvP46H2%3=46u%3Dhttps%= 2A3A%2A2=5F=5F%3BJSU%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0w= xqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo6HwPLil%24>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktime.symantec.com/367qhU4KiUkzW9uGC4eAvP46H2=3F= u=3Dhttps%3A%252
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktime.sym= antec.com/3A5B8H2=46m1rPnaZ3Supjwr6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urldefense.= com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46clicktime.symantec.com%2=46367qhU4KiUkz= W9uGC4eAvP46H2%3=46u%3Dhttps%2A3A%2A252=5F=5F%3BJSU%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0= Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDozoQiAHk%24= >>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >&=23160; > =46%<= a href=3D=22http://2=46www.ietf.org=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22>2=46www.ie= tf.org


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktime.symantec.com/39NznmYBt= RuHARhGJ5W5dGB6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5F= http%3A%2=462=46www.ietf.org=5F=5F%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5F= R1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo-pPCjvR%24>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > <https://clicktime.sym= antec.com/3GWT9fyja=46i3=46cvHDvoodvS6H2=3Fu=3Dhttp%3A%2=46%2=462=46www.i= etf.org
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktime.symant= ec.com/39NznmYBtRuHARhGJ5W5dGB6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urldefense.com%= 2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttp%3A%2=462=46www.ietf.org=5F=5F%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%2= 1S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo-pPCjvR%24<= /a>>>%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > spring mailing lis= t


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > spring=40ietf.org <= mailto:s= pring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spring=40ietf.org> <mailto:s= pring=40ietf.org
 >&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <mailto:spr= ing=40ietf.org%0b>> <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; https://cli= cktime.symantec.com/367qhU4KiUkzW9uGC4eAvP46H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46ww= w.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3BhyEtx4Q7n74BhiRnfMJt= T6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46= clicktime.symantec.com%2=46367qhU4KiUkzW9uGC4eAvP46H2%3=46u%3Dhttps%2A3A%= 2A2=46%2A2=46www.ietf.org%2A2=46mailman%2A2=46listinfo%2A2=46spring=5F=5F= %3BJSUlJSUl%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAtQxgm0x0wxqguoZHgw= p6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo-hR3gAD%24>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; ------------------------------------= ------------------------------------


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > Notice: This e-mai= l together with any attachments may contain


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > information of Rib= bon Communications Inc. that is confidential


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > and/or


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > proprietary for th= e sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > disclosure, relian= ce or distribution by others or forwarding


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; without


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > express permission= is strictly prohibited. If you are not the


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > intended


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > recipient, please = notify the sender immediately and then delete all


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > copies, including = any attachments.


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; ------------------------------------= ------------------------------------


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > spring mailing lis= t


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > spring=40ietf.org <= mailto:s= pring=40ietf.org> <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyVPByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dht= tps%3A%2=46%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https:/= /clicktime.symantec.com/3NrDnSTReXh671G79BVGEq16H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46= urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46= listinfo%2=46spring=5F=5F%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAt= Qxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo5KlPnbj%24>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > spring mailing list


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > spring=40ietf.org <mailto:spring= =40ietf.org> <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyVPByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A= %2=46%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; <https:/= /clicktime.symantec.com/3NrDnSTReXh671G79BVGEq16H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46= urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46= listinfo%2=46spring=5F=5F%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAt= Qxgm0x0wxqguoZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo5KlPnbj%24>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; >


>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; spring mailing list


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; spring=40ietf.org <mailto:spring=40ietf.org>


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160; https://cli= cktime.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyVPByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46ww= w.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2=46spring


>&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;&=23160;


> <https://clicktime.= symantec.com/3NrDnSTReXh671G79BVGEq16H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%
 > 2=46= %2=46urldefense.com%2=46v3%2=46=5F=5Fhttps%3A%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46= listi


> nfo%2=46spring=5F=5F%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21S0Yusx9=46YNE8E=5FR1oiQAt= Qxgm0x0wxqgu


> oZHgwp6vpRHOGt8AkTRDuiDo5KlPnbj%24>


>


>


>


> --------------------------------------------------------------------= --


> --


> Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain


> information of Ribbon Communications Inc. that is confidential and/o= r


> proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,<= br />

> disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without=


> express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intend= ed


> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all<= br />

> copies, including any attachments.


> --------------------------------------------------------------------= --


> --





=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F


spring mailing list


spring=40= ietf.org


https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyVP= ByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2= =46spring


=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F


spring mailing list


spring=40= ietf.org


https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Q1xsKGyMzNJCKyVP= ByhqLq6H2=3Fu=3Dhttps%3A%2=46%2=46www.ietf.org%2=46mailman%2=46listinfo%2= =46spring





&=23160;





&=23160;



<= /span>



Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may co= ntain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. that is confidential and/= or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, di= sclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without expres= s permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipien= t, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, inclu= ding any attachments.



<= /span>





&=23160;























=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F


spring mailing list


spring=40= ietf.org


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring






















=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F

spring mailing list

spring=40= ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/= spring

--


Gyan Mishra<= /p>

Netw= ork Solutions Architect&=23160;

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike&=23160;
Silver Spring, MD


--5f3afc99_66ef438d_65d7--