IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4.16

li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com> Thu, 17 October 2019 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.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 0752B12004A; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.114
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2=0.874, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hotmail.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 rpvJtq1FvfUR; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-SG2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092253109.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.253.109]) (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 B51B1120047; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=DaKdYRnY9CpVCUwk8fh0hnR8bOY9wEEXBc2Vjdq98w4OTacrVT4A6fm9VFbYQRmYKahfYLaYECcMSslFNmsIm+QOu1a6CE8d30Wluy7PtQ2nMFDGFja+vs6v4S/jeSDFbr5PO0ThBnd5/QRQe3r89yqQaJzCE6CVTrG5rWF3YXTAx1KzlQzYV9x+9mNa1S+qqEh5XaLP/W+GbLgbr25cMULWiwYvUqbi2xu2L19Il5TUF3TRe0qDhQv4VhKHzo5tW/yjnV0hwByCdS7ZYpfPv07lzXbfBqlOKhstPKMmZABMvqWNJHPcvT04Oy2M6n9zS5MlQEG9ONnxdhgqcbVu4w==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=05J754zldTpDYoIQ0hzZNAkJ3AjL7fplmeQNJtQN8PE=; b=BaLfdvfmxWp8tbBpskmNxrGAjTAq8ucEeg4669ncNZVbFZKE5KKlsYJ6fhEgUzwGwmzvuJ67K2+JsX182bHsrdSjaKdxVWqg90xjR9K/QSWBB4/JaUjWxtGaskzaFu7Obfe4JaUoXVeOchVzcSeQAUpoTvXkvbRdHzUbPg/0S7hdZ67raD8v64VDTxiiSn7ft0ya70ZnGrQ/ayBXGdLqFYfLXD7cRY+ymOARaccv27gek5zcPY1CQ3tUHLclx4fd/ckqy3zi4z47vEr9JJgjORXv/RWYlW3Y7R5yWF04u1pp+c51Olk0mZR6x5SHipDRDzQjuNYUZmwiRYiRnTs6pw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=05J754zldTpDYoIQ0hzZNAkJ3AjL7fplmeQNJtQN8PE=; b=uBd8BOloW3z0IeGtjdgyC0wVkGCyKYEx+EWV29vUZWnugt6b1Qf0d3ZXGB8C09MOemo+MNyeqhWlZ8JmylWVarQUrNItShEnE8IvI66K9nQP4wAYlypihML9edHnAiM0NI22HnDGc0CwghKo0Ye/RYYO23NagcbVhDALTF0Q2sRQ2TEFX6HVWW/hDn3otyYCEIJXBLuk4DURryw7Uah1RsO0OJ5CfZcv1p0pwl4EjsNK69zsS77kZ/sJGs5zbSdVnu5E8OHhavF6odnqyJVp89UqC6BCSc6YjQ/BJSsGpH0jfiCZNCpemSj3lT0YQ869oTINW43XC6yuNlgIiOiUPQ==
Received: from HK2APC01FT061.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.248.51) by HK2APC01HT137.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.249.124) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2367.14; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:11:00 +0000
Received: from HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.152.248.52) by HK2APC01FT061.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.249.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2367.14 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:11:00 +0000
Received: from HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7dba:f7ea:56a0:2b70]) by HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7dba:f7ea:56a0:2b70%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2367.016; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:11:00 +0000
From: li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4.16
Thread-Index: AdWCvuiPDa1a/xxMT66jJXRsDe/6WA==
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:11:00 +0000
Message-ID: <HK0PR03MB4066A1C72BEEDD1180DAC721FC6D0@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN7PR05MB5699A0BCB61A1D47B7905192AE900@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <HK0PR03MB4066E2363F78EA35ACE2C5F0FC930@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>, <B04B94A5-F331-43DC-9B42-EEF60E87EDBA@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: HK2PR04CA0043.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:202:14::11) To HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:203:9d::21)
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:72709E7A08F935DC4A686C499151E495A9A00E9EF4AD59E4CED70A710996FBEB; UpperCasedChecksum:640665BEE7843B1925CFE340035CAA2C7154D490928FA534B660CB80785C7FFC; SizeAsReceived:7863; Count:52
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-has-attach: no
x-mailer: Foxmail 7.2.9.156[cn]
x-tmn: [AtTeL7R8AnC2vvhfmz5oo6wsW/+3Ofwj]
x-microsoft-original-message-id: <2019101712110150777433@hotmail.com>
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 52
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HK2APC01HT137:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: gBUJ7s+TF3tBiw/zPr7eoc30imVCPaDFKMPEsRYlomCTGKgY9f0UVJQW5jPXKYkQKc1xp3kNG5xtcZ5mZlsYu1ajgmVPi6UP5Q0nbO+dMs3UuJ1l9SeIfSdKUpQegu4tfLZcgf54lHX54YGL0Guh2BMgTFxEYbW25zNMe8mycjReYwweb20RRDy6rSFORQsdVuVqlStfKo1PQP+XDBdxyGPAdxr0YkR+WcPrVeqlq7E=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HK0PR03MB4066A1C72BEEDD1180DAC721FC6D0HK0PR03MB4066apcp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5395849f-c758-4c7c-8ef3-08d752b80462
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Oct 2019 04:11:00.2489 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HK2APC01HT137
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/iuzJvd1OMnHzY7Y85sHBPtDULoc>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4.16
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: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:11:07 -0000

Hi Pablo,

I am still confused by the example in section 2.8.1. Node 3 is the destionation of SID B:3:C4::, why should it behave PSP for this SID? While for SID B:8:D100::, it is an END.DT4, the PSP behavior is not defined for this kind of SIDs. Node 3 should not behave PSP for SID B:8:D100::, neither.  Would you please explain node 3 is the penultimate segment hop of which node or which segment? Suppose the behavior is correct, may I know the benifit you gain in this example?

Many Thanks,
Zhenqiang Li
________________________________
li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)<mailto:pcamaril@cisco.com>
Date: 2019-10-16 00:45
To: li zhenqiang<mailto:li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>; Ron Bonica<mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4.16
Li,

I have replied the technical questions regarding PSP and USP in the email thread from one week ago.
You have not provided any technical concern.

> “Further, the example for PSP in the companion doc srv6-net-pgm-illustration is wrong. PSP is used for END.DT4 in the companion doc while flavors are only defined for END, END.X and END.T in srv6-network-programming.”

The illustration in section 2.8.1 is correct. Please re-read it. PSP is used at node 3 together with the End.X behavior.

Regards,
Pablo.

Replies from one week ago:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak


From: li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 09:32
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4.16
Resent from: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent to: <cf@cisco.com>, <pcamaril@cisco.com>, <john@leddy.net>, <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>, <satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp>, <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Resent date: Tuesday, 15 October 2019 at 09:32

I suggest this section be removed from this version until the community reaches rough consensus.
Further, the example for PSP in the companion doc srv6-net-pgm-illustration is wrong. PSP is used for END.DT4 in the companion doc while flavors are only defined for END, END.X and END.T in srv6-network-programming.

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
________________________________
li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

From: Ron Bonica<mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: 2019-10-15 02:42
To: SPRING WG List<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4.16
Authors,

Lacking the B.INSERT and T.INSERT functions, can you describe a use-case for the PSP and USP flavors of the END, END.X and END.T functions?

                                              Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email