Re: [spring] Comments on SR policy

"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com> Fri, 14 August 2020 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ketant@cisco.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 B27373A0B9A; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 04:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=V9H1HJaN; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=EI+gaxGN
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 pdIHGmkrSBoX; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 04:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA7753A0B8E; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 04:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11750; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1597404978; x=1598614578; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=UWbCu0KeLllVQ4/6/ZY8tBD1xqj7YagfJAt7DzdkAXU=; b=V9H1HJaN1a04xs+3GiKFGJmEaLVxaRaB2m9Z4SQKiVH73a+JtAGQIZJw Tz6hOLHehemVDcCMD/OzdFRfbmguI/je5ygmfCDM340Wwv7weGVAc76qI 5AnpvWKbXf5qRtgq0tIOVGAkyKNunhpqoZRIZAnO5yINkrxfkaMLQL0OK 4=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ae6CRKByUBa6N14nXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5ZRWPt/VqkFrAXIGd4PVB2KLasKHlDGoH55vJ8HUPa4dFWB?= =?us-ascii?q?JNj8IK1xchD8iIBQyeTrbqYiU2Ed4EWApj+He2YkhSBMP3ZlmUqXq3vnYeHx?= =?us-ascii?q?zlPl9zIeL4UofZk8Ww0bW0/JveKwVFjTawe/V8NhKz+A7QrcIRx4BlL/U8?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BWAQCcdjZf/4wNJK1fHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgTkEAQELAYEiL1EHcFgvLAqHcwONWoJrhx2JcoRtgUKBEQN?= =?us-ascii?q?VCwEBAQwBASUIAgQBAYRMAoJEAiQ3Bg4CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthVwMhXE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAxIbEwEBOA8CAQgRBAEBKAcyFAkIAgQBEggagwWBfk0DLgEOpy8CgTm?= =?us-ascii?q?IYXSBNIMBAQEFhSEYgg4DBoE4AYJwiikagUE/gVSBT34+ghpCAQECAYEiEio?= =?us-ascii?q?rCYMUgi2ZZItckCFRCoJiiGOMPoUfgn+JW5EegieQX4FZgWyIVoJlkhUCBAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EBQIOAQEFgWkkgVdwFTuCaVAXAg2OH4NxhRSFQnQ3AgYKAQEDCXyNfYE0AYE?= =?us-ascii?q?QAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,312,1592870400"; d="scan'208,217";a="801428727"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 14 Aug 2020 11:36:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07EBaH68010342 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:36:17 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:36:17 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:36:16 -0500
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:36:16 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=MdoNw9uomLpl8NFk3cW5hi3gK4HB7y9WwdUz5Xmjz7RB46MvBSNz8Za1S2lt6MiTwO/fh8PXoouJmhQRKox1fj09BeVCzhULbz4g/4XU0f8atft0F7Iv6qqW32Nuy2a1D3ZjJy5dX+uXb64JWMLDTe6jsTBF7ifREpyPPiTPjIVzyaunYOeD2STzmkJ+uDPCkYF9bHgxG0Rmn3KxkpCCamNa/Fow18GNl6fKlamC7sNq5s8kPHnO6wMUKZHW0Cl0XahdNe1CheFAgiCB+gka5slNfC8seEdV7fhiBeSLzqpyS9i5ndYfWeoz7rPd3kJBBmIIs2VUwzMrz3zhdEpBpA==
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=4FGWlK3UPJ6Qslebv6F40IbHjzoBkBlWl3FuVtSjF/I=; b=V9qH9aHIv4Pm1puaT08RhRyOCACtkvLGrl4eRoh1wMB3Zw5uV070G0GViNAMcmlCZ18diRkTTRKCBMZMac7Ncif9xDtyCGJvYodaa8whSJtuONs3/4ICKlBGxd4U9Gz9U2dqQFmJJRInGfzHeSnCbz2t28rRAd/6FfQ0N2xYRliwbhygrR5oQVLqsAqq4C2oITUibuasjYdvzIKlN8/pvXADueJgCdhjlPD7fZYunvfMBDTtcGCV1fMrelAcNjwoqL8ZdPugFXoSyB5Vjfmgprp2b80MDYa0Sb0rxn699mATPVh/ncoV//BGRDJ/NEJoNs6snSx3N6alFN6yaYKCNw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4FGWlK3UPJ6Qslebv6F40IbHjzoBkBlWl3FuVtSjF/I=; b=EI+gaxGNWANFLwfal5/bYAKXKIkguvayslVOvft2iNOWGJKwNzN6uNn8OIHQUOgsbu2t2R3JKmbAx6vTIQjXkvK5ZXp5tUsjyreHmzG/wqQEy5kAyDLvna+ZIaTZCs9ojOfexmN6epu2kLFrKjwVMCgBculJ0HPqN9R2xFcwqMc=
Received: from MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:5f::22) by MW3PR11MB4652.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:5a::21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.18; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:36:15 +0000
Received: from MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::658f:69a3:2fc5:d430]) by MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::658f:69a3:2fc5:d430%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3261.026; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:36:15 +0000
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: "li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com" <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on SR policy
Thread-Index: AQHWawMILoFabYib1kW1oP9vIEh+a6k3bvOg
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:36:15 +0000
Message-ID: <MW3PR11MB4570F5FE3FCE0A626081E8E4C1400@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HK0PR03MB4066195B12BDB26D4327B36DFC4B0@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HK0PR03MB4066195B12BDB26D4327B36DFC4B0@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: hotmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;hotmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [72.163.220.9]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 44e3ef2c-a525-48d7-c2b9-08d8404640d7
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MW3PR11MB4652:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MW3PR11MB4652F0D6CF6EA957C1B2E0A5C1400@MW3PR11MB4652.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: FxoZZaPXSYul6WyetCHtb3tz25wn9AeYBttvII+LOTfpveXo9hjuxiaNp33XmrXLd/cNtNDkeHOTbgGzuozL19IEJvOMRujgz1Zmqnlo7nNBkCFZM2KcS0Tv7/CKO+xEH3RK1VZY3cOurMKUlUU2ggkvLNr79aoeLKgMd8mv/E1Et8GS3pm6bjhbydnAen1XEWoJNIh7sQB82uhylxFrrwkmK4JEqLEcpOdVMQiLpMbdPM6dDI7vCAkH+aof2jtD8nfZgie6mZCXKinKPneY1gZWMa8WmwoBldgjYMyEb6jgaAQ0Y5fvyJghwar+w7gVnx1ax3tt2vv0yi1MppnOzjjzV9ZitI5AV9TluKlSt+5ZWrcX7QT2xicI7vQifua9mRJgcBMBb1PBgktWuA2EsA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(376002)(33656002)(8676002)(5660300002)(186003)(45080400002)(8936002)(478600001)(52536014)(2906002)(26005)(66446008)(7696005)(66476007)(71200400001)(76116006)(83380400001)(66556008)(86362001)(166002)(64756008)(316002)(55016002)(110136005)(53546011)(6506007)(3480700007)(66946007)(966005)(9686003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: mYCKFVQq2eaJ1+sJwrlBgyq0qahkpeuP7T9kI0ovvERpEL3cXHdb2O9YGfDW6zE6hOv3TAx13lKof8TASypTb2MV/y0qMmIodl/w6ytkBFjKrSJQx/1p4+GJrJwOh7w3Gx2TSLBe5vRnoJWypwzTFMtFLffTK3nIr23KAn7gIz/4K9kmQvMZ4XaL07hACox9JeId71hLL9ZIaHlrwGJhsLA0cUP9+r1LpXt5O3QDt/KFgl4rG6sjwKilt9WYTR7oZcxYXVJWUdY+dzU8nm9FNcNTtbEOYuJO7WKsMzPOz2eZMe+AkZiqHkige85mq6o1IJ2Pc9MvpMV53C1VoKRJu5kgoBlVtdN+AdZhrUC2mWlAJ1/MTHhI4T1musezhb5mdqMx5SzZ/Y5is6TxXpsr/DpvYhZWnC8ULd69U6+9aiiKGYl6Yp3UdS13Ujjuo6E2BLUhr6lceKioP1PbtbBmCI6gdxcyJ71JsRLSqOuhJw00KjBr40ksZGcSIHea8tLhOgyhUKlQ9INn+7ARgvo+fwchOAppo5RRoHqwNg9sL7UBcMvLClK+cE5YoMSnwh+yOacw5WJ6EzwwSWVScMioHYtOlF9EEy+XW6O2mE+AILzjuDeQ5dtuaqBzbVZGCx7QIpI2dxJ8tWCOKbQdQ07gBg==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MW3PR11MB4570F5FE3FCE0A626081E8E4C1400MW3PR11MB4570namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 44e3ef2c-a525-48d7-c2b9-08d8404640d7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Aug 2020 11:36:15.1684 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Z4mGnjMS9fK1C+39MDVn2uaA8szxsqLhWUY3UoCHoyC9KSJHsxHBzXktul8QtRR0+W226K82FzE/JjUlUUZ2qw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW3PR11MB4652
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/m6w-Dz4fAYnVFQGsX-xH0KX-fCk>
Subject: Re: [spring] Comments on SR policy
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, 14 Aug 2020 11:36:21 -0000

Hi Zhenqiang Li,

Thanks for you review and sharing your comments. Please check inline below.

From: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
Sent: 05 August 2020 14:03
To: spring@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org>
Subject: Comments on SR policy

Dear authors and all,

Please consider the following comments.
1. Do you think it is ok to add one more segment type for the segment list to incorporate the segment for Layer 2 bundle members? Please refer to rfc8668.
[KT] The Segment Type E covers Layer 2 Bundle Members : https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08#section-4

         This type can also be
         used to indicate indirection into a layer 2 interface (i.e.
         without IP address) like a representation of an optical
         transport path or a layer 2 Ethernet port or circuit at the
         specified node.


2. For per flow steering to a policy, why do we limit the array index to 0 to 7?  I think this is implementation specific and the number of paths in an array depends on the application scenario. I am not sure whether or not 8 paths is enough for all scenarios.

[KT] The draft does not limit the Forwarding Classes to 8. The value 8 is more of an example and comes from Traffic Class [RFC5462] and the IP Precedence portion of DSCP [RFC2474]. The section starts with "Let us assume" and there is also the following text in the same section:



   The array index values (e.g. 0, 1 and 2) and the notion of

   forwarding-class are implementation specific and only meant to

   describe the desired behavior.  The same can be realized by other

   mechanisms.



3. For protection in section 9.1, it is better to add some text like "the local protection may not satisfy the SLA requirements or the path constrains for the policy" when an SR Policy is built on the basis of TI-LFA protected IGP segments.
[KT] Sure. We can add this clarification in the next update.

Thanks,
Ketan

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
________________________________
li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com<mailto:li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>