[spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
liu.yao71@zte.com.cn Fri, 06 September 2024 06:24 UTC
Return-Path: <liu.yao71@zte.com.cn>
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 B138EC1D6FA0; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 23:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wd-wuM5KLQMo; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 23:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B007AC1D4A9C; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 23:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4X0R664bMdz5B1Gs; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:24:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4X0R5T6SqSz501bL; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:24:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app05.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.121]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 4866OCH5003073; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:24:12 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from liu.yao71@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:24:14 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:24:14 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb66daa00e396-d5708
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20240906142414433JWc3ZRuYADgEsb6wr3Pzk@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <9c01f395dd634cab8ef00fee7af877db@huawei.com>
References: 9c01f395dd634cab8ef00fee7af877db@huawei.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
To: c.l=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 4866OCH5003073
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 66DAA02E.002/4X0R664bMdz5B1Gs
Message-ID-Hash: IWEN5LQJFJGYG6X7WYASBKL7NQRTWAAT
X-Message-ID-Hash: IWEN5LQJFJGYG6X7WYASBKL7NQRTWAAT
X-MailFrom: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: spring@ietf.org, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/rY0mOmlEwM4Z7Z7dZFXvahRIeC4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Cheng, Some comments after reading v-09. Section 3 To identify an SRv6 path, this document defines a new segment called SRv6 Path Segment. An SRv6 Path Segment will not be used for routing so it should not be copied to the IPv6 destination address. [Yao]The word "will" is kind of ambiguous, is it a "SHOULD" / "MUST"? Section 5 A Path Segment is a local segment allocated by an egress node. A Path Segment can be allocated through several ways, such as CLI, BGP [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment], PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment] or other ways. [Yao] Besides allocating the path segment by the egress, from my reading of draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment section 5.2.2.1 , path segment can also be allocate by the controller. And as described in section 3.1, besides as the local segment, the path segment can be a Global ID. So "A Path Segment is a local segment allocated by an egress node." is not accurate. Section 6 When an SRv6 Path Segment is inserted, the SL MUST be initiated to be less than the value of Last Entry, and will not point to SRv6 Path Segment. [Yao] Is the SRv6 Path Segment MUST be inserted by the headend node of an SR policy? It would be helpful to add some rules/recommendations on inserting the path segment. Thanks, Yao Original From: ChengLi <c.l=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> To: spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>; Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment@ietf.org <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment@ietf.org>; Date: 2024年09月02日 23:46 Subject: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 Hi SPRING, The SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has been published as RFC9545, and we think the content of SRv6 Path Segment draft is quite stable and mature, so we hope to see more tech reviews on it so that we can move the draft forward. The draft is quite simple and straightforward, and it defines a new type of segment called Path Segment, which is useful to identify an SRv6 path, similar to SR-MPLS path segment. The draft only defines the location that the SRv6 Path Segment should appear, the possible general formats of it, and the general handling of Path Segment. How to allocate the value to a Path Segment is out of the scope of this draft and should be defined as per use cases. An SRv6 Path Segment will not be used for routing so it should not be copied to the IPv6 destination address. Many thanks for Adrian, Stefano and Zafar for their useful comments and help on this draft. More reviews and comments are welcome! Thanks, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 5:15 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) WG of the IETF. Title: Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6) Authors: Cheng Li Weiqiang Cheng Mach(Guoyi) Chen Dhruv Dhody Yongqing Zhu Name: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt Pages: 13 Dates: 2024-09-02 Abstract: Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding an ordered list of instructions, called "segments". The SR architecture can be implemented over an MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane. Currently, Path Segment has been defined to identify an SR path in SR-MPLS networks, and is used for various use-cases such as end-to- end SR Path Protection and Performance Measurement (PM) of an SR path. This document defines the Path Segment to identify an SRv6 path in an IPv6 network. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment/ There is also an HTMLized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-s… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… zehua.hu@foxmail.com
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… liu.yao71
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… wanghaojie@chinamobile.com
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… zehua.hu@foxmail.com
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… 岳胜男
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… linchangwang
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li
- [spring] Re: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ie… Cheng Li