Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 July 2021 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <gdawra.ietf@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 0F9D73A34B7; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 igoG0WG3X2VL; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (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 B761D3A34B5; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id b12so16576935pfv.6; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=13ZMtZAYNv6rOHCdKwxHTeTZ1Qe8ARkd/uC3qmZpFnc=; b=NzTqAoHexB8p2h0e7Z9ZrHE7bBsvB2elHYPA/+NihA1m2i9M91BHWDwsM3BdQPZKe/ jrzEJCYdefLB3LK4KgXc+YY1EP3OS6uc+A4qFL79KAXurDQnDJullzU2E6+88sv9HL/v XROB6bWXAXwAuhCIXyLvuVYfjabpDF1z/TITF0I9Kiwoag51M5Lzxql++ZxTcdiXCyZ3 ezEorOBzFS+pA7i62ZZzkY6q1b7c+sx3MpkWW7FGhOxjdx8j0PPrxWwz8Cf2+RIT55ko IRG/j4pXvxAMu4V6FqxuhvxTmnyNlTpFlku6kmkRV+gFQoFKQyQfw5i0FtaGOcWOAIJP NmWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=13ZMtZAYNv6rOHCdKwxHTeTZ1Qe8ARkd/uC3qmZpFnc=; b=Qs1ROmxjHVRzGHpuLJ4kKSSqQNquVtRahsGv/nkTpxiylKopdpx/mt1o+5XrxQKdvu VfxGdhvdm8Mg7NK1NCaWINIUQ+1wCy4x8JPba28I9D9oB1+XRL/CBeK3FFTH1zGv+NnZ Xvj2KoSYfB+IAbYQp14ysZH8xP1w8CEq2lfRBGp+g8hecPpzHQlzSVidrKOccboDOm/n OE5GiNAhalXYbAZuboxDu/zhkg/ALNeMfmuh+7bcBAfai5hEi9P6eCQ7DpTxj1gtQON6 XBoo4BZZvLH0XDy2mnKXrydGFsGRdg6Z03PHIKxoa9RDBuL4Xl7iKQrzWFPRsc1Xspso WLtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533IfX0E3FWvaD+8A+NlmF2/Lzi0LTrQFUn+YiHdTcM773Jg5hpy pgGTs5R5MYROnCL3ZZM0epwPe97CQyA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJynB+UV3Vd4z0oRRWZ6y+PJn96+VlUYaNGwXu3qe9YTPF0AcYzeOZl7rNLYEtQVBFPo0zlQjg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1889:b029:332:13d6:a6eb with SMTP id x9-20020a056a001889b029033213d6a6ebmr25849527pfh.25.1626703261245; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (108-221-21-153.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [108.221.21.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l65sm10592554pgl.32.2021.07.19.07.01.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7ECA4CF6-3D75-4DD3-8AE8-8A26EA93EE65
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:00:59 -0700
Message-Id: <634258F9-CE2C-4B52-A268-FF5A491E0CBD@gmail.com>
References: <CAOj+MMH6KVNBzJt488tSHRAo-dSNcO5OeATyhzj3sPCKc8=BEg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>, Rajesh M <mrajesh=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, bruno.decraene@orange.com, spring@ietf.org, bgp@ans.net, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, bess@ietf.org, Srihari Sangli <ssangli@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMH6KVNBzJt488tSHRAo-dSNcO5OeATyhzj3sPCKc8=BEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18F72)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/t0RusZoTDVFFJmHSN8z9rHNu840>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)
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: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:01:08 -0000

+1 on Jorge and Robert. I don’t think we should mandate.

Gaurav

> On Jul 19, 2021, at 6:52 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree with Jorge.. 
> 
> In fact I find the tone of the comment to be very inappropriate: 
> 
> > In case of best effort/flex algo we must mandate user to set corresponding locator as BGP nexthop for srv6 routes.
> 
> No we MUST not mandate anything to the user. 
> 
> We MUST provide flexibility to address all deployment cases user may have. 
> 
> Best,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 3:47 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> wrote:
>> Hi Rajesh,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The draft is written so that the next-hop address MAY be covered by the locator, but there are cases in which the next-hop address is not part of the locator prefix, and there are implementations already allowing that, so I don’t agree the document should mandate what you are suggesting.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Jorge
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>
>> Date: Monday, July 19, 2021 at 3:24 PM
>> To: Rajesh M <mrajesh=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>, gdawra.ietf@gmail.com <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>om>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfilsfil@cisco.com>om>, robert@raszuk.net <robert@raszuk.net>et>, bruno.decraene@orange.com <bruno.decraene@orange.com>om>, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
>> Cc: spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>rg>, bgp@ans.net <bgp@ans.net>et>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>et>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>rg>, Srihari Sangli <ssangli@juniper.net>
>> Subject: RE: SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)
>> 
>> Hi Authors,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Please respond.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Rajesh
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rajesh M
>> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:36 PM
>> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>; gdawra.ietf@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfilsfil@cisco.com>om>; robert@raszuk.net; bruno.decraene@orange.com; jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
>> Cc: spring@ietf.org; bgp@ans.net; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>et>; bess@ietf.org
>> Subject: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As per this draft, this is how resolution must work.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1)For Non Intent service Route:
>> 
>> if BGP next hop is not reachable return.
>> 
>> Resolve SRv6 Service SID for forwarding.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2)For Intent service Route (IGP Flex-Algo first then BGP CAR then SR Policy):
>> 
>> BGP next hop is not reachable return.
>> 
>> Resolve SRv6 Service SID for forwarding(To find IGP flex algo).if successfully resolves then return.
>> 
>> Resolve BGP next hop for forwarding (in case above is not success).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Using Service SID (overlay),for resolution is definitely not recommended.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Instead in case of srv6, we always resolve on BGP nexthop. This will be in line with BGP legacy.
>> 
>> In case of best effort/flex algo we must mandate user to set corresponding locator as BGP nexthop for srv6 routes.
>> 
>> I think this is a reasonable mandate.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Rajesh
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Juniper Business Use Only