IETF Logo Mail Archive

[spring] Re: Request for more discussion/feedback on draft-dong-spring-sr-4map6-segments

liu.yao71@zte.com.cn Fri, 11 July 2025 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <liu.yao71@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C584142C19FA for <spring@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 19:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.663
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.232, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YuLN4bCkg4_O for <spring@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 19:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [160.30.148.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C66F42C1339 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4bdbn53JYyz5F2lp for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:50:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4bdbmT3fBQz4xPRy; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:50:17 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app03.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.14]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 56B2o414019605; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:50:04 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from liu.yao71@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:50:05 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:50:05 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af968707bddffffffffea0-f2ceb
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20250711105005592jemmUjhz6XPSLq_Vp4-wl@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <tencent_B5254342408B74D6F3DA5212C88AB35B7D06@qq.com>
References: tencent_B5254342408B74D6F3DA5212C88AB35B7D06@qq.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
To: guozhen.dong@foxmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 56B2o414019605
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 68707C09.004/4bdbn53JYyz5F2lp
Message-ID-Hash: 672JJEGJP6CZTYP2EOED6VCP2Y4LX6GY
X-Message-ID-Hash: 672JJEGJP6CZTYP2EOED6VCP2Y4LX6GY
X-MailFrom: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Re: Request for more discussion/feedback on draft-dong-spring-sr-4map6-segments
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/HuYwAn_6QTpGO58bmH9kJlNkr3I>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Guozhen,

I have a few questions on the draft.
a) The introduction section says that this document defines "a new type of segment", is it a new type of segment or a  new type of SID behavior?
b) I don't quite understand how encapsulation or translation processing of IPv4 packets E/T is distinguished by the identity of ARG field, could you explain it?
c) What's the relationship between the new End.4map6 and the existing VPN service SIDs defined in RFC9252, can they be used together?


Regards
Yao



Original


From: guozhen.dong <guozhen.dong@foxmail.com>
To: spring <spring@ietf.org>;
Date: 2025年07月10日 18:49
Subject: [spring] Request for more discussion/feedback on draft-dong-spring-sr-4map6-segments

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org


Hi, all,

We posted the -04 revision of the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-spring-sr-4map6-segments/ a few weeks ago.

This draft defines a new type of segment for Segment Routing, 4map6 segment, which is an IPv4/IPv6 conversion function based on stateless mapping rules running in PE nodes for the delivery of IPv4 services over IPv6-only network. The new SID mainly deals with how to generate new IPv6 headers based on the information of IPv4 packets.

We would like to request more feedback/suggestions/discussions on this draft, so that we can further improve it and progress the document.


Best regards,

Guozhen

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status