Re: [spring] Whether the Point-to-multipoint requirement is in scope of SPRING?

Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com> Fri, 26 February 2021 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rishabhp@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B143A13BD; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:41:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGufSaTJzZXY; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 8DCF43A1392; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id a18so1154274wrc.13; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:41:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xEyKpHp05Gj+w6a+gyf6bGEktlqIPl+WuDFtlqCnmbQ=; b=Ofbf7zXZ/Jvj+zaqOhIa2QY8sI310b15hNI88AxdBLUB9Sbw8196uxSgZEKbbsXzKE C3tuo4vkioHedpNDntDamD+/nk1geiVcbj3hW610DlZB/xTK+KH3+Z98y+Uk5QOiGHhP HJ+jWELzs2BOf9ZFCWAZT1X5S5BDPsJ8kqLt80e0MJJqg7XgKW5DH/CAHevAnu1Vus8L WpRq4ByhmZR7eTFdQFx7W2alk4mf8BqoNP1cJ7gftJ+JmwX0JyXtF2M8XGq6JSAOsfyx ZeliMMasjPBV/032iZSDb6za3VbWeadu3Ed4lW1gWSpqz5HMAzXeItzFi0DBDWwFTf43 IjrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xEyKpHp05Gj+w6a+gyf6bGEktlqIPl+WuDFtlqCnmbQ=; b=IDaAEKK2v3dwnHkFX7GrpTC3xS4kjE8oDSZOLg6IoODHKiMxC/KKnmKGyEPIx6HNu8 R+WwzsY5NXPU1bTw5J6qn0huLFLKDqHLGIo7wMiLVXU7LojGbBf0rs0BorM3jQpEmIGf Bit519SIllCE1MGhy0x47Wa0rH3Uxbg9fFmq2xsW7NXH2Ea9LxrJDZvv/lfgcynxbHCh nMMjEVJTnr2lAXg8omrEC0cXL4CnqIHPFv4NpHVHF27Q3RR4T4glqXo/yILp57k1WzH7 0nEFlxSONDy9WrmzqW3QksGBtH20P5bKjFQ5tpIATk7dLH5f9CaE6Nwl9+8HlQPv6peE Tdww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5333geYkmI/L5t2x2gTVqmOjSBqG0kmbp080ZNG8GyE8JWDhpbPq 2vQMMOBYtjzY5wwa+5WzwTz27ydtCjriD/qdwdk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1rGd0rl7Mt0QwF/LzlB2uKk3I1KiTvlNp0lD7aCbnRUUZv8mD/89hYuFFJbfQvk8JPVbrZAhX7IbyYOB6woM=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:fc46:: with SMTP id e6mr4440984wrs.389.1614361273827; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:41:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <046f01d70b1a$ddbdd5e0$993981a0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <046f01d70b1a$ddbdd5e0$993981a0$@com>
From: Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:41:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CABjMoXYFVCVA7WTqvvOcrTPVcxuDmi_WAE5gGuwWgZaWMi_Tgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, srcomp@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000044072d05bc40c6d8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/QadqCj31BgJCLicfUONQEviLno8>
Subject: Re: [spring] Whether the Point-to-multipoint requirement is in scope of SPRING?
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: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:41:21 -0000

Weiqiang,
Text quoted below from the SPRING charter indirectly covers
Point-to-Multipoint requirement which is addressed by SR Replication
Segment draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/ .

New types of segments mapping to forwarding behaviour (e.g., local
ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing
replication structure) if needed for new usages.

For the Point-to-Multipoint compression requirement, what exactly is
"multicast address" in the Metric? Is this an IPv6 multicast address? If
so, it really does not conform to SRv6 data plane.

I would rather consider the SRv6 Replication SID, described in the latest
version of SR Replication segment draft, to be the Metric for measuring
P2MP requirement. Maybe we should also consider adding it to SRv6
Functionality Section 4.2.1 of the compression requirements draft.

-Rishabh

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:07 PM Weiqiang Cheng <
chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> wrote:

> Hi Chairs and group,
>
>
>
> SRCOMP design team is discussing the Point-to-multipoint requirement for
> SR compression as text below.
>
> But we observed that the SPRING charter did not mention
> point-to-multipoint content.
>
>
>
> One question for SPRING WG:
>
> Whether the Point-to-multipoint requirement is in scope of SPRING?
>
>
>
> ===
>
> Short Name: Point-to-Multipoint
>
>
>
>    Description: The compression mechanism SHOULD support point-to-
>
>    multipoint SR paths.
>
>
>
>    Rationale: Many VPN services require point-to-multipoint SR paths.
>
>
>
>    Metric: A compliant proposal can encode a multicast address in the
>
>    ultimate segment of the segment list.
>
>
>
>
>
> B.R.
>
> Weiqiang Cheng on behalf of SRCOMP DT
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>