Hi Linda, Nope. Nodes except egress have any reason to look at VPN label. That label has only local significance on egress.
Thx, R. On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:45 PM Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Robert, > > > > Thank you very much for the explanation. > > With the L3VPN case, there are nodes between Egress and Ingress PEs that > do look into the VPN label carried by the packets for VRF & IP lookup, > correct? > > I was just confused of the statement about “all nodes between Egress & > Ingress PE are SR unaware plain IP forwarding nodes”. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Linda > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 03, 2019 3:50 AM > *To:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@futurewei.com> > *Cc:* draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for > draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 > > > > Linda, > > > > SRv6 services is just a general term used here. Imagine one of such > service is L3VPN. VPN label (or pointer to it) is needed to be carried > somewhere in the packet as address space may be overlapping between VPN > customers and simple IP lookup will not be sufficient to determine VRF or > exit interface. > > > > One option which has been done and deployed is to encode it natively in > the packet and on ingress simply apply prodecures of IPv4 or IPv6 > encapsulation - RFC4797 and RFC7510 > > > > The other new option is to take the VPN label or VPN demux value and > encode it in SRH or in DO. > > > > Now which option to choose is left for the operator to decide likely > depending on a lot of other factors involved. > > > > Thx, > > R. > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:52 AM Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@futurewei.com> > wrote: > > I support WG adoption of the draft, with the following questions. Hope > authors can help to explain: > > > > Section 1 Introduction states that the underlay between the Ingress and > Egress only needs to support plain IPv6 > > Forwarding. Those plain IPv6 routers don't need to understand the SR > policies encoded in the payload, correct? > > Why need Ingress PE to encapsulate the policy sent by egress PE if all the > nodes between them are plain IPv6 routers? > > > > Which PE is to enforce the SR policy? > > If the policies are for the egress to enforce, why can't the egress PE > simply enforce the policy instead of asking ingress node to encapsulate the > policy in the packet header? Which has the drawback of extra header bits in > packets. > > > > Linda Dunbar > > > > > > *From: *"Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bo...@nokia.com> > *Date: *Friday, September 27, 2019 at 4:00 AM > *To: *"draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" < > draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org> > *Subject: *WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 > *Resent-From: *<alias-boun...@ietf.org> > *Resent-To: *<gdawra.i...@gmail.com>, <cfils...@cisco.com>, < > pbris...@cisco.com>, Swadesh Agrawal <swaag...@cisco.com>, < > daniel.vo...@bell.ca>, <daniel.bern...@bell.ca>, <d...@steinberg.net>, < > rob...@raszuk.net>, <bruno.decra...@orange.com>, < > satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>, <zhuangshun...@huawei.com>, < > jorge.raba...@nokia.com> > *Resent-Date: *Friday, September 27, 2019 at 4:00 AM > > > > Hello, > > > > This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for > draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] . > > > > Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group > list. > > > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to > this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > > > If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't > progress without answers from all the authors and contributors. > > Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. > > > > If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been > disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > > > This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019. > > > > Regards, > > Matthew and Stephane > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/ > <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-dawra-bess-srv6-services%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ccda46858450b47cddd2908d747deab0f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637056893990134792&sdata=KplKMUlBMxL1hSt2ZMbYHpChddEsDhTRrUOLH7e7gaQ%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
