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

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

During the SPRING session at IETF 120, there were some other comments from Tom Hill, which are about the trust model between IP and the underlay networks (e.g. optical).

The authors are aware of network scenarios where IP and its underlay networks are under the same administration, in which case the mechanisms described in this document can be applicable.

That said, we fully agree with Tom that the scope and the trust model of the mechanism could be clarified. The plan is to add some text to make it clear that the proposed mechanisms are applicable to networks in which the IP layer and its underlay networks are under the same administration, and the necessary information of the underlay connections is allowed to be exposed to the IP layer for SRv6 based inter-layer path programming.

Tom, please let us know if the above can address your comments during the meeting, many thanks.

Best regards,
Jie

From: 韩柳燕 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 5:54 PM
To: 韩柳燕 <[e-mail]>; Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:Re:RE: Re:RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question atthemikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming


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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：Alexander Vainshtein  <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄　送: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,draft-dong-spring-sr  <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[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-programming

Hi 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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>收件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>抄　送: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:40 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 收件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 抄　送: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 1:32 PM To: draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>  Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[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
Subject：Re:RE: Re:RE: [EXTERNAL] [spring] Re: My question atthemikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming

Hi 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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>收件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>抄　送: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:40 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 收件人："韩柳燕" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 抄　送: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 1:32 PM To: draft-dong-spring-sr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>  Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[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