[spring] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-19: (with COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 22 September 2020 09:15 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: spring@ietf.org
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9713A0A74; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 02:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, jmh@joelhalpern.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <160076610524.13099.16066036582221511974@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 02:15:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/t5KtgBn7f6Rr5YcTx4MvI1cIUO0>
Subject: [spring] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-19: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:15:06 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-19: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thank for this document. Not surprisingly given the large number of contributors working on this document I only have a few minor comments: 2. Terminology NH: Next-header field of the IPv6 header [RFC8200]. NH=SRH means that the next-header of the IPv6 header is Routing Header for IPv6(43) with the Type field set to 4. Suggest expanding "4" to SRH(4) 10.1. Ethernet Next Header Type This document requests IANA to allocate, in the "Protocol Numbers" registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol- numbers.xhtml), a new value for "Ethernet" with the following definition: The value 143 in the Next Header field of an IPv6 header or any extension header indicates that the payload is an Ethernet [IEEE.802.3_2012]. Should this point to the latest published version of 802.3 (2018), or does it specifically need to reference an older version? 3.1. SID Format This document defines an SRv6 SID as consisting of LOC:FUNCT:ARG, where a locator (LOC) is encoded in the L most significant bits of the SID, followed by F bits of function (FUNCT) and A bits of arguments (ARG). L, the locator length, is flexible, and an operator is free to use the locator length of their choice. F and A may be any value as long as L+F+A <= 128. When L+F+A is less than 128 then the remainder of the SID MUST be zero. This was reasonably clear to me, but since the rest of the description refers to bits, then I wonder whether the last sentence would be more precise as "the remaining bits of the SID must be set to zero"? 4.1. End: Endpoint S09. If ((Last Entry > max_LE) or (Segments Left > Last Entry+1)) { It wasn't entirely apparent to me where 'Last Entry' comes from, although that became more clear when I saw its usage later. Possibly it would be helpful to list "Segments Left" and "Last Entry" in the terminology as taken from RFC 8754? 4.1. End: Endpoint S12. Decrement Hop Limit by 1 Would it be more clear to expand this to say "Decrement IPv6 Hop Limit by 1", since it is referred to as the IPv6 Hop Limit previously. If this is changed, then there are a couple of other places in the document that should be checked as well. 4.2. End.X: Layer-3 Cross-Connect Note that if N has an outgoing interface bundle I to a neighbor Q made of 10 member links, N may allocate up to 11 End.X local SIDs: one for the bundle(LAG) itself and then up to one for each Layer-2 member link. This behaviour seems slightly unusual to me. I presume that the intent here is for the SR program to control which member link the traffic travels over rather than the normal behaviour of relying on the Bundle hashing. Possibly adding a bit more text to clarify the expected behaviour might be helpful. 4.4. End.DX6: Decapsulation and IPv6 Cross-Connect S05. If the End.DX6 SID is bound to an array of L3 adjacencies, then one entry of the array is selected based on the hash of the packet's header Section 7. The end of this sentence doesn't scan for me, probably it should be something end something like: ", see Section 7" 6. Counters A node supporting this document SHOULD implement a combined traffic counter (packets and bytes) per local SID entry, for traffic that matched that SID and was processed correctly. The retrieval of these counters via MIB, NETCONF/YANG or any other means is outside the scope of this document. >From my reading, a combined counter implies a single counter that is incremented by both the number of packets processed and number of bytes processed. Normally in the management models you would normally expect this to be modeled as a pair of counters, and I presume that is what is desired here? If so I would suggest clarifying this text to indicate that it is a pair of counters (one for packets, one for bytes) that are required here. Section 4, various places. At various points the Upper-Layer Header type is compared to a number (e.g. 4, 41, 143). It might be a bit more readable if the associated names were also included in the description. E.g., 4(IPv4), 41(IPv6), etc. 4.10. End.DX2V: Decapsulation and VLAN L2 Table Lookup Is this lookup just on the outermost VLAN Id, or all VLAN tags in the exposed Ethernet header? Or is this implementation specific? Regards, Rob
- [spring] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ie… Robert Wilton via Datatracker
- Re: [spring] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draf… Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)