Re: [spring] [Srcomp] New drafts from SRCOMP design team

Ron,
SRv6 Replication SID does not need to follow IPv6 multicast address format
since it is an IPv6 unicast address like any other SRv6 SID.

-Rishabh

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 9:09 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

> Rishabh,
>
>
>
> Is Section 2 of the SR replication segment draft compliant with Section
> 2.7 of RFC 4291? Could it be brought into compliance by using the high
> order 16 bits that RFC 4291 recommends?
>
>
>
>
>                                                                            Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Srcomp <srcomp-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Weiqiang Cheng
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:28 AM
> *To:* 'Rishabh Parekh' <rishabhp@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* srcomp@ietf.org; 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Srcomp] [spring] New drafts from SRCOMP design team
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Rishabh,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> It is good point, and DT will consider the it in.
>
>
>
> B.R.
>
> Weiqiang Cheng
>
>
>
> *发件人**:* spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org <spring-bounces@ietf.org>]
> *代表 *Rishabh Parekh
> *发送时间:* 2021年2月27日 01:50
> *收件人:* Weiqiang Cheng
> *抄送:* srcomp@ietf.org; SPRING WG List
> *主题:* Re: [spring] New drafts from SRCOMP design team
>
>
>
> 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/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce0i_WdUG$>
>
> New types of segments mapping to forwarding behaviour (e.g., local
>
> ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing
>
> replication structure) if needed for new usages.
>
> For the Point-to-Multipoint compression requirement, what exactly is
> "multicast address" in the Metric? Is this an IPv6 multicast address? If
> so, it really does not conform to SRv6 data plane.
>
>
>
> I would rather consider the SRv6 Replication SID, described in the latest
> version of SR Replication segment draft, to be the Metric for measuring
> P2MP requirement. Maybe we should also consider adding it to SRv6
> Functionality Section 4.2.1 of the compression requirements draft.
>
>
>
> -Rishabh
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:25 AM Weiqiang Cheng <
> chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Two drafts have been submitted.  Please review them and any comments are
> welcomed.
>
>
>
> Compression requirement draft -04 version provided two more requirements:
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-04.txt
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-04.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce1UWnkzI$>
>
>
>
> Compression analysis draft -00 provided a skeleton for the analysis of 4
> candidate proposals.
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-00.txt
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-00.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce4mNqDYS$>
>
>
>
> B.R.
>
> Weiqiang
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce6GLiq7Z$>
>
>