IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Teas] Revisiting NRP Selector

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Wed, 09 October 2024 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008F5C14CE40; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r4HLPhRYIpKB; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E68C14F6EE; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-71e050190ddso175123b3a.0; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 12:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1728503117; x=1729107917; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zqWgYVapFmMD78ebTNPhQTQ5CMsBkZH6FiNPNhkL3Zk=; b=mcnm1gautJKCtsmt+gaHZNwvDeg3SvlPGnaXcoP5J2WAm4UI4mVgWDQzSypHf2dsBX byQ8QO+Evk8yreuJ9XP+AE+BO/Nvn3TUAoC8gl3ajjrmlf9T2hwmAHEgM/Rtzc+Qt7FW atugCcwk0D+HoqiZXd2bxVHJuZVXBGvQLWmjsv27G3RZPLQmvvfWbtQ62IzplGhBXHlz wpBi5H1/UHoyE+mYovegH2vVzXn202rgFzsBVe0X0tAqGjJmAaM8IcgXm9kamaCSL+4X /ZcCsOZ3apw3A49EVIvy46aMDNehV3yJhvx9XVsjmVLYK41tCJKTOa5niBbm7UJud75B j1Pw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728503117; x=1729107917; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zqWgYVapFmMD78ebTNPhQTQ5CMsBkZH6FiNPNhkL3Zk=; b=PRBeVz6mjSRE3cg8YRD2jW20YxISAvIYP2gKy9vlyYaCf5al+UEiBjyWYavHkksi8q MaAmrPIyJUzF9k6XjYICV88uRsVv13whdfY04QWx9ut8D5H/hvF4OOb+Nf+XGJvyWMlt uyhlcfeUeGY2yozZJUu0ZBeDgh/tTerJgmrGpr/XW63cIbksx+Avywj+Ahcx3wEhGt0/ tYnLaYD6p1p+/OnARVnoSSV5p5zH8MuqJuqD8UwJAhPfjDo+dTPWLAAHCiD2qFA43xtO 7o1As8Kiuf3I60HLm5845ZNILrVmo899apRAv/599ukV2snsB7yFzd4xtr8AkSKRAkY6 K6bw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz/XZMj/4V943asP60SlGMwZM5g54S8WPcrZjzYndS9l1DPr3o8 Be3SW7Yeeqs2sYEGHVkqh7Y9GCW3cCL2dqsR/yuyL9JJAOiBrqngfspnB+drjltZhWG2Wudo3SU H+VAVVe0gLDzg2R1ZpcDaAP9wVrzvNShBu3A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFryoNRIEfjWyFiEvR2YXGMw4WtoCfoNFeqeWvhm+mydtHbkpcOE6J3jX/eDH6FvZs/jm2YKlLhJEKG7eEErwI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:4006:b0:1d3:e72:75f2 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1d8a3bfdc24mr6388820637.16.1728503117257; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 12:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 01:15:05 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTu9CKq7wMKkUhhDdZXTqvp+BHLvWeQmXa-PmeknA2VaNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004c250d0624107e80"
Message-ID-Hash: V3DXCXTHHA446475R6Q6PY7R6YFYFM2Z
X-Message-ID-Hash: V3DXCXTHHA446475R6Q6PY7R6YFYFM2Z
X-MailFrom: vishnupavan@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-teas.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc5
Precedence: list
Subject: [Teas] Revisiting NRP Selector
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/7L_P5jnozRTWsdMF7DIe8rexFYI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:teas-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:teas-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:teas-leave@ietf.org>

We had a virtual interim meeting on May 29th 2024 to discuss the following
NRP Selector specific items:

   - Generic requirements and options for carrying NRP Selector in IP and
   MPLS packets
   - The relevant modeling aspects
   - The data plane specific extensions that come into play when a
   dedicated identifier is used as the NRP selector.



The meeting minutes are captured at:

   -
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-teas-01/materials/minutes-interim-2024-teas-01-202405291400-00



We (the chairs) are starting a thread to close on some of the items
specific to having a dedicated identifier that is used as NRP selector
(note that NRP selector refers to the marking in the packet’s network layer
header that is used to associate the packet with an NRP).

   - What do we call this dedicated identifier field?
      - “NRP Selector ID” and “NRP Data Plane ID” have been proposed so far.
   - Length of the dedicated identifier field
      - Is it okay for this to be different for different data-plane types?
      - A 32-bit field has been proposed for the IPv6 Data-Plane; A couple
      of options – 8 bits and 13 bits – have been proposed for the
MPLS data plane
         - Please note that the actual data-plane specific encodings are
         outside the scope of the TEAS WG.
      - “Strict” match indicator
      - When a dedicated identifier is used as the NRP Selector, is it
      useful to have an explicit indicator to determine what to do
with a packet
      that cannot be mapped to an NRP?
         - Drop the packet vs Map it to a default set of network resources
      - The actual encoding of this “indicator” could be different for
      different data-plane types and will need to be discussed in the
respective
      WGs (outside the scope of TEAS WG).



Please chime in with your thoughts on these items.

- Pavan and Oscar

ps: @Jie – Thanks for the offline prod. Please feel free to add other open
items specific to NRP selector (that we may have missed) to the above list.

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status