Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Wed, 08 September 2021 03:25 UTC
Return-Path: <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92353A1351 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 20:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GYWHLWB7KcnI for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 20:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta3.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167803A134E for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 20:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.13]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app09-12009 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee961382d0fa8d-da1f2; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:25:05 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee961382d0fa8d-da1f2
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc (unknown[10.2.54.85]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr07-12007 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee761382d0f152-fd0c6; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:25:05 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee761382d0f152-fd0c6
From: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, spring@ietf.org
References: <d060f258-4e7d-51a8-2ced-69cfe2daa31f@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <d060f258-4e7d-51a8-2ced-69cfe2daa31f@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:25:10 +0800
Message-ID: <06fb01d7a461$217a86e0$646f94a0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdejRWj5lH0hFoeyQp6ji1+BM09YmwBGnCbA
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Llk7Icn2SZX3wI80ukdhBeyFJOQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 03:25:23 -0000
Dear Chairs, Many thanks for your hard working. We are happy to see that the CSID draft has significant interest to be adopted as a WG document. Regarding the dataplane, the authors believe that the CSID draft contains only one dataplane solution with two different flavors[1]: NEXT-CSID-FLAVOR and REPLACE-CSID-FLAVOR, rather than two dataplane solutions. Both the flavors are defined based on the SRv6 data plane(one data plane), and the SIDs with these two flavors can be encoded in a single SRH just like we can encode PSP Flavor SIDs and USD flavor SIDs together in a SRH. The inter-op test of CSIDs had been done almost one year ago[2], and everything was OK. Furthermore, the mechanism defined in the draft has been stable and mature. With the consensus, the authors hope WG can consider to adopt the CSID draft. Best regards, Weiqiang on behalf of CSID authors [1]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986#section-4.16 [2]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-co mpression-02#section-11 -----邮件原件----- 发件人: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Joel M. Halpern 发送时间: 2021年9月7日 01:27 收件人: spring@ietf.org 主题: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6 Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly. There is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution to compressing segment routing over IPv6. As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make. There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the CSID draft for addressing the above. However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would like to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical problem. The CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions. The above rough consensus is for one dataplane solution. Does the working group want to choose one? Do the authors want to suggest that one of the two is the one we should standardize, and get working group agreement? Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and solve the problem afterwards? (That itself does not solve the problem, it merely kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid putting the WG in conflict with itself? As a loosely related side node, the chairs will also observe that we do not see an obstacle to informational or experimental publication of other solutions, as long as there is sufficient energy in the working group to deal with those. Also, only documents for which there is at least one implementation will be progressed this way. Thank you, Bruno, Jim, and Joel _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
- [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane sol… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Tony Li
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Weiqiang Cheng
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… liu.aihua
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… zhen han
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… liu.aihua
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Lihao
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Qiuyuanxiang
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… linchangwang
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Lizhenbin
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Zafar Ali (zali)