IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] SRv6 compression

liu.aihua@zte.com.cn Thu, 29 July 2021 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <liu.aihua@zte.com.cn>
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 161B73A2408 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5gKvtxM_4IVo for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FBA13A250F for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 9E121F3446F5B8D2E6C3 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:49:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 8BC76E266A47E940F17E; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:49:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kjyxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.30.12.201]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 16TEn90I009470; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:49:09 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from liu.aihua@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (kjyxapp07[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid13; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:49:08 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:49:08 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b096102bfe4ad1d3a3a
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202107292249089234392@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB44978A05B5BFCD3A0A79FD2D83E99@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: AM0PR07MB44978A05B5BFCD3A0A79FD2D83E99@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.aihua@zte.com.cn
To: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 16TEn90I009470
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/yat8-MPAcjB4-f8-bBbEQ9DknCw>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 compression
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: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:49:23 -0000

Thanks for DT's hard work completing SRv6 header compression requirements and solutions comparion. 


I agree that it's better for industry if we all accept only 1 standard solution for SRv6. The different solutions compared by DT might originate from different main scenarios, such as C-SID mainly for standard SRv6, UIDSR mainly for both SR-MPLS and compressed SRv6. For standard SRv6 scenario, when we pick 1 solution the whole industry will be benificial with implementation, testing and interoperation, etc. 






Regards,


Aihua











原始邮件



发件人：Henderickx,Wim(Nokia-BE/Antwerp)
收件人：spring@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年07月27日 15:11
主 题 ：[spring] SRv6 compression




_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

 

Given the design team accomplished the work on providing requirements and analysis to compress an SRv6 SID list, I would recommend we pick 1 solution similar to what was done in NVO3 (when we discussed GENEVE, GUE, GPE, etc) given this has to be implemented in HW.


 


I hope we can conclude on this asap and move forward on this topic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email