[spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
"zehua.hu@foxmail.com" <zehua.hu@foxmail.com> Mon, 09 September 2024 07:33 UTC
Return-Path: <zehua.hu@foxmail.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 8ED51C13AE28 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 00:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.009
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.009 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, DYN_RDNS_AND_INLINE_IMAGE=1.168, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nWoC0u2KlLcv for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 00:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out203-205-221-205.mail.qq.com (out203-205-221-205.mail.qq.com [203.205.221.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 721C7C14CE29 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 00:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foxmail.com; s=s201512; t=1725867214; bh=VBQsNUUiNivsCwkWPfqYN6qBjtECCCvxsIF9KbifBDE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References; b=MrFm8/j1HE2GYjslSxqxUXqF2CEeFBLeh9uMzUf8z+9frSG0KXZbeG8MqCLh27vP1 V/84ZaC/UMV1wfqSzFJl8yNe0HMaE6hleWTBxE5h9oNwB/OgebwcRzipMPbH9ph2q0 Lk6hUtyaJmUypDAq4MB0s7ksSQhwwsjJY1Kiv9ow=
Received: from DESKTOP-AKI7PBC ([61.144.66.66]) by newxmesmtplogicsvrsza15-1.qq.com (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id 86006659; Mon, 09 Sep 2024 15:33:32 +0800
X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1725867212tkkk1k692
Message-ID: <tencent_AB90E8AFA12113EF2AE52DA573B729D6B20A@qq.com>
X-QQ-XMAILINFO: MneGWDFqy5BjtqBv4/zMseKRaP23NJdKztq/f0MvMlu/JGT7tuBR39SEay9B1Y uthXkk8pXTPHeCZomg0GWe+h+sR7nLx6+KGnmUil0DnEEA1diq14EPUNc78nHwirPzrPXt8+3//K 6umLaIDg3dmFM6TxdQGwm5kcLnyesm0b3Rd14pwP0dwXUkeXORVEx8HjQ1FiOFwrCxbDQ7MmSG7m 2O+vSgYuM1TTJVmlXPGi0dvxOWxFU04Kk0JfOUsXNqgWHeUSnn1omiwT0i96RaAijg/ipxIFJNnR HmTWhOuFf0KFV0ivtiiBhbiaLL6+zlCZDSrygtKjN05puWFBnQAYQqad3CsnySoeAPwV2dL4WqJ/ EfPhqSzU2QgqA9T/MNkCYRdKoqUimoSaOufnrD2SQTcfkJtlVCWQJwcoqRJoD4kd/PbewKlN/CjZ wXjJqCf85ZT8cAHrRVlZXasEXscEiH/6VqsY6du32gng8ReYY6P6ZF5dZh7yNj5wMheDI78Bj8jv JKiyfS4mfwUr89H2bVh+QioRa3XOklAJHQQmUyDjz2Ja7fDZXTqjPNdWAYncpdCLmCw6wbxleiPh GqxXNFLIFtE4zN8IOSor8B9ErBbKS3xco/YUH7C2JlQsxqW/EjInGGSrf8WpMzapksEdnwP6l0mA AqU8XXr0QXNmB1VYFv+czNmqh5IinVRnwI8skmQlOT1pg9TZEuXS6FhfghbQhDGFg9KOBGlUCaXG JTfiJJeDQdWDN4OdD7P9YtE89Na6NgRi3e0GyDKKSbmh3e0rUsYYgHYDzBA9qDH/G6XYjotS/j3Y R0UvUGgk1qcOl4Tfe5NwdtD3RhckXNQU3Ogmu/dr4ACajjd4EKsLcAJKV3f9CNtInwABqfoByTPr AjEIVRM3cQdeyGUTg6hjA2Aty45/Nf4CH0UKMgTW5V91zMDmzEZYviZKyVuF27FSANsVY+FrnH2n CDzJOe6V/0zXrwG1NLZ/tnawWO8nVMFBCV5+W7SB5BEQlyaEm4QFJf2HtkAN8eCtRXbAhkIG5Hwx tSnw1pGSc6Tout33NE0LZq0kf+Ds7qm1+zUREBZpt2yASYaqlKj8lVwPI+vO7/GoHsiEU21GiyT3 Rc2rxx6iJiQvVJK6UArptLdU1hX3NFbUCH1iWHjyFpydGZrCVbtyZID2hU8XrwpccovNMr
X-QQ-XMRINFO: NyFYKkN4Ny6FSmKK/uo/jdU=
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 15:33:30 +0800
From: "zehua.hu@foxmail.com" <zehua.hu@foxmail.com>
To: "c.l" <c.l@huawei.com>
References: <202409051747545127226@chinatelecom.cn>, <tencent_2FD97C372F4F3EDDB10DA8D681E46B4D0305@qq.com>, <3879033f546344ed8771a5717da9ca38@huawei.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 1A0904B7-CA72-423D-A304-134E69B0B4EF
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.25.245[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-OQ-MSGID: <2024090915333025059212@foxmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_001_NextPart573245501516_=----"
Message-ID-Hash: 5XOZYEM6LKMSDKX2ESZZSPOPTVZZEVME
X-Message-ID-Hash: 5XOZYEM6LKMSDKX2ESZZSPOPTVZZEVME
X-MailFrom: zehua.hu@foxmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/f6teRgYMt1pv-ZtKqjh49WZw1aI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>
Hi, Cheng: 1) I think adding this text would be helpful for understanding. 2) Yeah, I think path segment may have more interesting use cases when considering intermediate nodes, which can be further explored in future discussions. Best, Zehua From: Cheng Li Date: 2024-09-06 00:00 To: zehua.hu@foxmail.com CC: SPRING WG List Subject: RE: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 Hi Zehua, Thanks for your comments! Please see my reply inline. BR, Cheng From: zehua.hu@foxmail.com <zehua.hu@foxmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 3:10 PM To: Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com> Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 Hi, Cheng: Thanks for the draft. Just 2 questions here. 4.1. SRH.P-flag -In some use cases, only the egress needs to process the SRv6 Path Segment, therefore, the P-flag processing can be done at the egress node only while the intermediate nodes do not need to process it. 1) I think this paragraph and the following pseudo code indicate that the intermediate node can also process path segment. The use case listed in the manuscript are focused on end-to-end scenarios, it might help understand if there are more description about the scenarios related intermediate nodes. [Cheng]How about adding some text below the pseudo code? Like When the SRH.P-flag is set, the Path Segment processing is enabled. In the cases that the intermediate processing of Path Segment is disabled, a node will process the Path Segment only when it is the last segment endpoint node indicating by SL == 0. In this case, when the nodes are an intermediate node, it will ignore the Path Segment. When the intermediate processing is enabled, all the segment endpoint nodes along the path are able to process the Path Segment if a Path Segment is encoded in the SRH. There are some use cases that metadata of the packets will be collected and processed on the intermediate nodes, especially for the stateful use cases. The details of these use cases are out of the scope of this document, and will be described in other documents in the future. 2) In this situation, should introduce parameters or adjust the P-flag processing to specify which intermediate node needs to process the path segment, rather than having all intermediate nodes process it? [Cheng] IMHO, that is depends on specific use case. In this draft, let’s make it simple. You are welcome to propose a new draft to define this, if you have interests on this Thank you for your comments! Best, Zehua China Telecom From: 【外部账号】Cheng Li Date: 2024-09-02 23:45 To: spring@ietf.org CC: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment@ietf.org Subject: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 Hi SPRING, The SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has been published as RFC9545, and we think the content of SRv6 Path Segment draft is quite stable and mature, so we hope to see more tech reviews on it so that we can move the draft forward. The draft is quite simple and straightforward, and it defines a new type of segment called Path Segment, which is useful to identify an SRv6 path, similar to SR-MPLS path segment. The draft only defines the location that the SRv6 Path Segment should appear, the possible general formats of it, and the general handling of Path Segment. How to allocate the value to a Path Segment is out of the scope of this draft and should be defined as per use cases. An SRv6 Path Segment will not be used for routing so it should not be copied to the IPv6 destination address. Many thanks for Adrian, Stefano and Zafar for their useful comments and help on this draft. More reviews and comments are welcome! Thanks, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 5:15 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) WG of the IETF. Title: Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6) Authors: Cheng Li Weiqiang Cheng Mach(Guoyi) Chen Dhruv Dhody Yongqing Zhu Name: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt Pages: 13 Dates: 2024-09-02 Abstract: Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding an ordered list of instructions, called "segments". The SR architecture can be implemented over an MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane. Currently, Path Segment has been defined to identify an SR path in SR-MPLS networks, and is used for various use-cases such as end-to- end SR Path Protection and Performance Measurement (PM) of an SR path. This document defines the Path Segment to identify an SRv6 path in an IPv6 network. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment/ There is also an HTMLized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-s… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… zehua.hu@foxmail.com
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… liu.yao71
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… wanghaojie@chinamobile.com
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… zehua.hu@foxmail.com
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… 岳胜男
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… linchangwang
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li