Re: [spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 18 May 2021 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 316C73A169F for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2021 08:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.755
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.755 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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=raszuk.net
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 YFZMWZJQUUvh for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2021 08:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (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 A7D513A169E for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2021 08:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id p20so12020257ljj.8 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2021 08:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Mn65PQnQfrokESdcMQgXxK8EuXogh2j+uehdHP7AqzY=; b=aTexrNvDMTQUhI26BhXyVJWnbkHtG0jmHqXYFOlnPmdIhw+RcO+WFFxN1esuKJdZZp TBkFBQVl2zBER/COfabzO7W7EKdtr1JxPOXNkaPGHLKi5jvDT+IKyrfoqnbmjop8J9zA huT/MrD4NDjyGrtpyVy7KmPricAZxl0hlaMzBnodmrSpx4HB2oOXK7FBRxCU9ZaQrbfd FPj7IZZ3BMLzhF3+DqjSBGTH2WfB9Ngs3YbgOoxqffwS0luqKXJ2SGoQ8bqH2oa/RJDe +Sru9antlxaSDIaVBvG9AAIxjmemiOxCo21vc6NfsSGojaQW7TOXVbvflExbZW1KUWaK YYEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Mn65PQnQfrokESdcMQgXxK8EuXogh2j+uehdHP7AqzY=; b=LK8vD2Bg6Xok6j5ZigWOydbU6ZRy4sn97qeIgP/zCGYihpBQ4ZVclHveNAdsKC7Pgs Sb7bgfIaZxnDWao/w+7/iFvd87ixXwGmBnrxVEXBK80h5S9WTfyDLmzsMzecYDbVbV+r eQIfqOP8QrpTpGZ7j37m5ZX48qqJ54MM9/lpE4MBBth9kElHlBz3AQYDttKTJthVji0z J9ZyY5xLOiU3aFyzBSs2ZKBslOKmcS4rC6u0hB5ATfo3iOmwgdwUutSFMtTwpBXdnU9e fthhqDsCKyyhjzHTkpnyRXbFDfHZ5e8Rdv6d7P06kSGAgS8SnBP2tDI1kMus548DVZ0q L97Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530DzTGetjNP1/O+HG1P65pCT8l2mMJdLxmBkgFDcWEif8yPZJXC NvA56DeqSLD9MA7veF/Ard/zTi2UHRddEoThd17EIQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqnQJBQ2lROe3F2Opn1552wWZP+Of4XAbDcJjW6HlQMTZO86QURofcDdju6qnTPIB53ZxIh0kX/nVzYTtDHeo=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a554:: with SMTP id e20mr4427814ljn.23.1621350878512; Tue, 18 May 2021 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BN6PR05MB3634E92A4D97BA9BB4FAF87BBE2D9@BN6PR05MB3634.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB4570946685D0AF570B620676C12C9@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN6PR05MB36344F3B2B48287E8B2CE9A6BE2C9@BN6PR05MB3634.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR05MB36344F3B2B48287E8B2CE9A6BE2C9@BN6PR05MB3634.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 17:14:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEwX79ZhknALsYRg7Gen3TmM4XVEmPhH=C64e7xhLYcAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>
Cc: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, "gdawra.ietf@gmail.com" <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002b9b5205c29c2bfd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zzhptCEGmRsJw4_Ef-w7wAOtUGE>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services
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: Tue, 18 May 2021 15:14:47 -0000

Hi Rajesh,

I am afraid you are mixing layers :)

VRF services can be mapped to any color for transport and that color does
not need to be subject to PHP.  Flexible Algorithm are layer below services
and are just about transport in the set of closed domains.

If you look at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-02
page 14 this should be clear that IL red/blue color label can be carried to
the egress PE and data can be treaded as red/blue also when traversing such
egress PEs.

We do not need in general to explode service label space/sid.

Thx,
Robert.



On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:03 PM Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net> wrote:

> Thanks Ketan,
>
>
>
> My query is
>
>
>
> If we allocate SRv6 Service SID per-VRF
>
> Let’s assume For this VRF locator assigned is 2001:129:1:13::
>
> DT4 SID is-2001:129:1:13::4
>
> DT6 SID is - 2001:129:1:13::6
>
>
>
> a) Now how to support Different flex algo for different routes with in a
> VRF ?
>
>
>
> For VRF1 Prefix 10.129.0.0 I want to use color 129…this is OK
>
>    - BGP Prefix: 10.129.0.0/16
>    - color: 129
>    - Service SID:  2001:129:1:13::4 (DT4 SID)
>
>
>
> For VRF1 Prefix 10.128.0.0 I want to use color 128
>
>    - Prefix: 10.128.0.0/16
>    - color: 128
>    - Service SID:  ? (I don’t have service SID based upon color 128,
>    since above allocation is based upon per vrf)
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Rajesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:35 PM
> *To:* Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>et>; gdawra.ietf@gmail.com; Clarence
> Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfilsfil@cisco.com>om>; robert@raszuk.net;
> bruno.decraene@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Rajesh,
>
>
>
> The FlexAlgo for SRv6 is described in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Xn4WAWuXx98Jdyu7VzfkC3hjctbWJEnPiTUcj_bAML3F17iJrr77ruwLY3XyBBXQ$>
> and that would require different SRv6 Locators for the FlexAlgo. When the
> SRv6 Service SID is allocated from the SRv6 Locator for a FlexAlgo then the
> service flow will be forwarded along with FlexAlgo path.
>
>
>
> I am not entirely sure that I got your question though.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>
> *Sent:* 17 May 2021 12:30
> *To:* gdawra.ietf@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <
> cfilsfil@cisco.com>gt;; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>;
> robert@raszuk.net; bruno.decraene@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
> *Subject:*
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> As per draft
>
> “When providing best-effort connectivity to the egress PE, the ingress
>
> PE encapsulates the payload in an outer IPv6 header where the
>
> destination address is the SRv6 Service SID associated with the
>
> related BGP route update.”
>
>
>
> If we allocate SRv6 Service SID per-VRF then how to support
> a) Different flex algo with in a VRF ?
>
> b) Different flex algo with in a internet (default VRF or global)
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Rajesh
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>