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

[Gaurav Dawra <[e-mail]>]

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

Gaurav

> On Jul 19, 2021, at 6:52 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> 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) <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Monday, July 19, 2021 at 3:24 PM
>> To: Rajesh M <mrajesh=[e-mail]>, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Srihari Sangli <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rajesh M
>> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:36 PM
>> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> 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