[spring] 答复: SRv6 compression

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Tue, 27 July 2021 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.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 9C80E3A1ED0 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 2PAcRFf2PzwM for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59ED53A1C71 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GYt7T3Jlhz6L9Pg; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:19:17 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm100003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.68) by fraeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:31:05 +0200
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.56) by dggpemm100003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:31:04 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) by dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:31:04 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SRv6 compression
Thread-Index: AQHXgrWMI74G9jgvu0u2ICteTuLwOKtWg6KCgAAbD6A=
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:31:04 +0000
Message-ID: <975f3defba6c4e8abf2f7d713af3647b@huawei.com>
References: <AM0PR07MB44978A05B5BFCD3A0A79FD2D83E99@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR08MB706058AA99ADC757AA717982F7E99@BY3PR08MB7060.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY3PR08MB706058AA99ADC757AA717982F7E99@BY3PR08MB7060.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.181.245]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_975f3defba6c4e8abf2f7d713af3647bhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/mmSb5MT_-xzVCORz7M6OwBWVKco>
Subject: [spring] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogU1J2NiAgY29tcHJlc3Npb24=?=
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: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:31:14 -0000

Agree, we should pick one solution to be standardized now, to facilitate the network deployment.

And I believe the solution is the one that has been implemented by the most vendors in the world, which is CSID.

That would help the industry for sure.

Respect,
Cheng



发件人: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
发送时间: 2021年7月27日 16:54
收件人: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>om>; spring@ietf.org
主题: Re: [spring] SRv6 compression

I agree with Wim’s statement that the precedent in NVO3 *could* apply here too: pick one solution as Standard’s track RFC, and once it is done, the others might be documented as Informational RFCs if they have implementations.

That would help the industry to move forward.

Thanks.
Jorge


From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderickx@nokia.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 9:11 AM
To: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] SRv6 compression
Given the design team accomplished the work on providing requirements and analysis to compress an SRv6 SID list, I would recommend we pick 1 solution similar to what was done in NVO3 (when we discussed GENEVE, GUE, GPE, etc) given this has to be implemented in HW..

I hope we can conclude on this asap and move forward on this topic