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, 8 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