Re: [spring] General Proxy behavior in SR Service Programming

["Francois Clad (fclad)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

Thank you for your email.

A proxy and its associated SF can be seen from the network as a single entity: a packet enters this entity from the network, gets processed by the SF, and exits towards the network. The packet modifications that occur between the entry and exit of this entity are compliant with existing standards.

Whatever happens between the proxy and SF is internal processing and invisible to the network. However, a network operator or controller needs some information about the proxy’s internal behavior to determine an appropriate SID-list through the SF and possibly configure the proxy.

Cheers,
Francois


On 25/07/2020 20:23, "spring on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    <chair hat off for now;  This issue may, depending upon resolution, 
    become a chair issue, in which case, I will look at it through a 
    different lens.  Heck, I may even disagree with myself.>

    Let me start by saying that I understand and support what the draft is 
    trying to do.  While I like SFC, I am under no illusions that it is or 
    should be the only answer to service chaining / service programming.

    Further, I understand what the proxies are for.  They seem necessary. 
    To deploy this stuff, we have to be able to work with older equipment. 
    Proxies seem the best way to do so.

    The document is even clear that  proxy is a new kind of thing.  Good.

    In order to do its job, and as I read this document, the SR proxies (of 
    various kinds) violate the rules for MPLS processing, SRH processing, 
    and IPv6 processing at various points.  They have to.

    It seems to me that we need to accept this requirement, and state it 
    clearly.  Most likely, this would suggest that we will want some form of 
    signoff from the MPLS and 6man working groups that these violations, for 
    these specific reasons, are acceptable to the community.  Personally, I 
    would rather have the discussion soon, rather than pretending it is a 
    non-issue and having the discussion during IETF last call.

    Maybe I am misreading, and things are less conflicted.  That would be great.

    Yours,
    Joel

    <chair hat returning to wherever it belongs.>

    _______________________________________________
    spring mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring