Re: [spring] Network Programming Interface for Provisioning of Underlay Services to Overlay Networks Using SRv6 (draft-xie-spring-srv6-npi-for-overlay)

Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net> Wed, 09 March 2022 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ninjabadger.net>
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 522643A078A for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 06:43:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 irvPeP5g-6Md for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 06:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from b-painless.mh.aa.net.uk (b-painless.mh.aa.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C993A3A0770 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 06:43:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2a02:8010:69a6:0:39cc:c7b2:817c:1996] by painless-b.tch.aa.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <tom@ninjabadger.net>) id 1nRxX6-009pyh-8x for spring@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 14:43:19 +0000
Message-ID: <f2ba3c4a-e30d-d3f2-211b-0b42d99cd876@ninjabadger.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 14:43:13 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: spring@ietf.org
References: <5138b23393b7434fa674eefd1886385d@huawei.com>
From: Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net>
In-Reply-To: <5138b23393b7434fa674eefd1886385d@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/RgawnTk4q3XkIn-8kRG1GKWyCLM>
Subject: Re: [spring] Network Programming Interface for Provisioning of Underlay Services to Overlay Networks Using SRv6 (draft-xie-spring-srv6-npi-for-overlay)
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, 09 Mar 2022 14:43:29 -0000

Hi Jinrong,

On 08/03/2022 01:58, Xiejingrong (Jingrong) wrote:
> I just posted a draft that specifies a framework and some more detail of 
> the idea for provisioning of underlay services 
> (Slice/SR-policy/Mcast/etc) to overlay networks(SD-WAN/CDN/etc), using SRv6.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xie-spring-srv6-npi-for-overlay 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xie-spring-srv6-npi-for-overlay>
> 
> Please comment and send any feedback.
> 
> I would like to discuss this document over e-mail/mail-list.


I'm concerned that this draft is explicitly violating the concept of 
SRv6 as a protocol that operates within a Limited Domain.

As per Section 3.2 of this draft, "... the network operator of AN, TN 
and Internet can be different from each other."

Further, "In some scenarios, the AN can be an Internet exchange provider 
(IXP) independent of ISP and NSP. In some other scenarios, the AN can be 
an ISP that running Internet backbone as well."

This would read to me that the proposal is explicitly intended to be 
inter-domain, and not at all limited to any one administrative domain. 
Additionally, I cannot determine if the draft implicitly requires the 
use of SIDs across the public Internet?

Could I ask for some clarification on the scope of the draft, with 
respect to Limited Domains, and also the use of SIDs over the public 
Internet?

Kind regards,

-- 
Tom