[spring] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: My question atthemikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming

[韩柳燕 <[e-mail]>]

Sasha,



In my last email, I added some considerations. Thank you again for your understanding and discussions.



Best regards,

Liuyan

 



 ----邮件原文----发件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]>收件人：Alexander Vainshtein  <[e-mail]>抄　送: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,draft-dong-spring-sr  <[e-mail]>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>发送时间：2024-08-22 17:46:15主题：Re:RE: Re:RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question atthemikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programmingHi Sasha,I disagree.Please see the reply:[Sasha]I have looked up Section 4.2 of RFC 8986 (that defines End.X behavior) and it contains the following statement:When the End.X behavior is associated with a BGP Next-Hop, it is the SRv6 instantiation of the BGP peering segments [RFC8402].I.e., End.X behavior can be decoupled from IGP adjacencies.[HLY] END.X needs L3 adjacenies using IGP or BGP or other L3 protocols. We donot require L3 adjacenies and the related protocols in our case of underlay links.As defined in RFC8402 and RFC9087, certain segments are defined by a BGP-EPE capable node and corresponding to its attached peers. These segments are called BGP Peering Segments or BGP Peering SIDs. They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain paths. The endpoints of the underlying link are not BGP peers, and that is different from the case here( not the inter-domain scenario). ----邮件原文----发件人：Alexander Vainshtein  <[e-mail]>收件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]>抄　送: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>发送时间：2024-08-22 16:54:56主题：RE: Re:RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question at themikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming    Hi Liuyan,I think that we can simply agree to disagree. Regards,Sasha From: 韩柳燕 <[e-mail]> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:40 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail] draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]> Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> Subject: Re:RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question at the mikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming Hi Sasha, Thank you for the reply.In the underlay link scenario that our draft focuses on, protocols such as IGP or BGP are not running between the two end nodes of the underlay link, and the connection between them  is an underlying link. We consider that it is different from the standard end.X behavior between L3 adjacencies as specified in RFC 8986. The forwarding behavior has its own particularities, so we think defining a new behavior should be better. Best regards,Liuyan   ----邮件原文---- 发件人：Alexander Vainshtein  <[e-mail]> 收件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]> 抄　送: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]> 发送时间：2024-08-21 01:17:43 主题：RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question at the mikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming    Hi Liyuan,My apologies for a delayed response.I have looked up Section 4.2 of RFC 8986 (that defines End.X behavior) and it contains the following statement:When the End.X behavior is associated with a BGP Next-Hop, it is the SRv6 instantiation of the BGP peering segments [RFC8402]. I.e., End.X behavior can be decoupled from IGP adjacencies.Hope this helps.Regards,Sasha From: 韩柳燕 <[e-mail]> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 1:32 PM To: draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]> Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>  Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail] Subject: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question at the mike aboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming Hi Sasha, Thanks a lot for your question at the meeting and via the email discussionsSubject：Re:RE: Re:RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question atthemikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programmingHi Sasha,I disagree.Please see the reply:[Sasha]I have looked up Section 4.2 of RFC 8986 (that defines End.X behavior) and it contains the following statement:When the End.X behavior is associated with a BGP Next-Hop, it is the SRv6 instantiation of the BGP peering segments [RFC8402].I.e., End.X behavior can be decoupled from IGP adjacencies.[HLY] END.X needs L3 adjacenies using IGP or BGP or other L3 protocols. We donot require L3 adjacenies and the related protocols in our case of underlay links.As defined in RFC8402 and RFC9087, certain segments are defined by a BGP-EPE capable node and corresponding to its attached peers. These segments are called BGP Peering Segments or BGP Peering SIDs. They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain paths. The endpoints of the underlying link are not BGP peers, and that is different from the case here( not the inter-domain scenario). ----邮件原文----发件人：Alexander Vainshtein  <[e-mail]>收件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]>抄　送: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>发送时间：2024-08-22 16:54:56主题：RE: Re:RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question at themikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming    Hi Liuyan,I think that we can simply agree to disagree. Regards,Sasha From: 韩柳燕 <[e-mail]> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:40 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail] draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]> Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> Subject: Re:RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question at the mikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming Hi Sasha, Thank you for the reply.In the underlay link scenario that our draft focuses on, protocols such as IGP or BGP are not running between the two end nodes of the underlay link, and the connection between them  is an underlying link. We consider that it is different from the standard end.X behavior between L3 adjacencies as specified in RFC 8986. The forwarding behavior has its own particularities, so we think defining a new behavior should be better. Best regards,Liuyan   ----邮件原文---- 发件人：Alexander Vainshtein  <[e-mail]> 收件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]> 抄　送: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]> 发送时间：2024-08-21 01:17:43 主题：RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question at the mikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming    Hi Liyuan,My apologies for a delayed response.I have looked up Section 4.2 of RFC 8986 (that defines End.X behavior) and it contains the following statement:When the End.X behavior is associated with a BGP Next-Hop, it is the SRv6 instantiation of the BGP peering segments [RFC8402]. I.e., End.X behavior can be decoupled from IGP adjacencies.Hope this helps.Regards,Sasha From: 韩柳燕 <[e-mail]> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 1:32 PM To: draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]> Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>  Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail] Subject: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question at the mike aboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming Hi Sasha, Thanks a lot for your question at the meeting and via the email discussions