Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sat, 18 September 2021 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 1C8C53A1491 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 j21N5bMLLJf4 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9922E3A148C for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id bg1so8435830plb.13 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nsuXPB+xREXAvisAnQAslD51N1HqfvGoIUjFFojfYvM=; b=aCpG4n9LIC5c4qxKb3w9xKYYHMC2Hyx74GnxVO2IyfN+RifM3rhMC8ui4sG8babx77 fFQnU+2F5iWFkemTVBx95npQuKmrpw2pihi35bLOs+VtaJ+tdxwS416xR1/O4y88ydQY vn5p3kLE1YvnzoHfB92CKDAMOjYb3QigqS+pAKxNOwOtJvMeYUcDno5iKuRLmE/HLQl1 CpkqxjgiapAsj/cq7lzJCRqwnFPgXlJGKtvyWD2DAfSoJzABWmShJpOIfIrez5+OG/GT FBCRtWs0ElLUYR1j4aAj4mHmTJvJnDQlti49Y6FbSoZXjGQO2pWSu7jGkIaVtBCtvaVY 190A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nsuXPB+xREXAvisAnQAslD51N1HqfvGoIUjFFojfYvM=; b=pX9debKHsKyePwavTg5sFb1FE+mfYhiTiwoJ6KpSRS+BY0iVPRnL+jov2BnfUwz6mY +kCFpBAZHw0oIkC1GD4kAuiqzqGJ+VTkhyRLyZRblAGLIorTjYlAoXYKVPQF0Q6arZoH h//L0vfrBAzFXGgONjDrgAJ/jo599ESfZtrocVyDjwAejXrw5+7PoUv4WeRKabZHsOcv 8WnLIBlXpnEKa/8WvalH2P8q/vz9OeuRj52qtbu/ZGVMtjCx+nwqS1JKozpMDEDB08Gr xu+wRlX3JeCxYBqZG8nuusaIOu4KF0sc1sqhtT39kHM10eh9IIBPA1ZVH3wTI2Q0zSmc mFuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5303HBureEebaoptahOPJrbY/43Httn2l7mww8xSE2a/2kjy/nV3 kU+AZhC+fumQxWIFaN4dTkGm9/gpyK5jOWKkz/uM2/Vr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw5upHYQpe2pjpBPEBU2pqlRJzmNsMRFpgKuQWBWqsaToJB77GmGL/JzZiNdtvI0d9tEcDw/xr/n/GUiBOlKtI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4306:: with SMTP id q6mr28427415pjg.202.1631997402466; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <06fb01d7a461$217a86e0$646f94a0$@com> <202109132030173896925@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202109132030173896925@zte.com.cn>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 16:36:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1t4Tv3bjCUoRkML4TMf+OhQqyx2rkhNW1yOkBfNAHGUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: liu.aihua@zte.com.cn
Cc: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com, jmh@joelhalpern.com, spring@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072cce505cc4b0152"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/qsUBtLUvwYkPOj236-MKlwfRFEQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
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: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 20:36:49 -0000

Dear Chairs & WG

As the authors have described the C-SID draft is a single solution for the
SRv6 data plane  compression solution with two different endpoint flavors
for SRv6 PGM Endpoint behaviors End and End.x, called NEXT-C-SID &
REPLACE-C-SID, similar to existing SRv6 PGM endpoint flavors PSP, USP, USD.

C-SID is a combination of the two drafts below:

C-SID
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Combination of the two drafts below:

G-SID - Generalized SID
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03

G-SID is renamed to C-SID and G-SRv6 compression sub path is renamed to
C-SID Sequence in REPLACE-C-SID endpoint flavor in the above C-SID draft.

G-SID container concept and breaks out the common locator part of the SRv6
SID and trailing bits for the encapsulation header savings.
G-SID draft section 8 shows interoperability  status applied to the C-SID
draft.

SRv6 uSID micro-segment
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10

uSID is renamed to NEXT-C-SID endpoint flavor in the above C-SID draft.

uSID Micro-segment introduces a LIB and GIB local uSID and Global uSID
concept of IDs within a container.

C-SID draft  introduces a new endpoint flavor option which is a combination
of the two drafts above called NEXT-AND-REPLCE-CSID which provides the best
efficiency in encapsulation size with increased complexity.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:30 AM <liu.aihua@zte.com.cn> wrote:

>
> Dear Chairs & Weiqiang,
>
> As I presented before, the CSID draft is just only one solution with two
> different flavors. Even there are some others, the CSID has the most
> supporters and has finished multi-vendor interworking test and field test,
> including my company ZTE. Especially, CSID is the most compatible the
> standard SRv6 dataplane. It's benificial for SRv6 industry if the WG could
> adopt the CSID draft.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Aihua
>
>
> 原始邮件
> *发件人:*WeiqiangCheng
> *收件人:*'Joel M. Halpern';spring@ietf.orgf.org;
> *日 期 :*2021年09月08日 11:25
> *主 题 :**Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for
> compressing segment routing over IPv6*
> Dear Chairs,
>
> Many thanks for your hard working.
>
> We are happy to see that the CSID draft has significant interest to be
> adopted as a WG document.
>
> Regarding the dataplane, the authors believe that the CSID draft contains
> only one dataplane solution with two different flavors[1]: NEXT-CSID-FLAVOR
> and REPLACE-CSID-FLAVOR, rather than two dataplane solutions.
>
> Both the flavors are defined based on the SRv6 data plane(one data plane),
>
> and the SIDs with these two flavors can be encoded in a single SRH just like
> we can encode PSP Flavor SIDs and USD flavor SIDs together in a SRH.
>
> The inter-op test of CSIDs had been done almost one year ago[2], and
> everything was OK.
>
> Furthermore, the mechanism defined in the draft has been stable and mature.
>
> With the consensus, the authors hope WG can consider to adopt the CSID
> draft.
>
> Best regards,
> Weiqiang
> on behalf of CSID authors
>
> [1]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986#section-4.16
> [2].
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-co
> mpression-02#section-11
>
>
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
> 发送时间: 2021年9月7日 01:27
> 收件人: spring@ietf.org
> 主题: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing
> segment routing over IPv6
>
> Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly.  There
> is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane
> solution to compressing segment routing over IPv6.
>
> As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make.
> There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the
> CSID draft for addressing the above.
>
> However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would
> like to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical
> problem.  The CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions.  The above
> rough consensus is for one dataplane solution.  Does the working group
> want to choose one?  Do the authors want to suggest that one of the two
> is the one we should standardize, and get working group agreement?
> Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and
> solve the problem afterwards?  (That itself does not solve the problem,
> it merely kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid
> putting the WG in conflict with itself?
>
> As a loosely related side node, the chairs will also observe that we do
> not see an obstacle to informational or experimental publication of
> other solutions, as long as there is sufficient energy in the working
> group to deal with those.  Also, only documents for which there is at
> least one implementation will be progressed this way.
>
> Thank you,
> Bruno, Jim, and Joel
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*