Hi Robert In-line question
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Linda, > > Nope. Nodes except egress have any reason to look at VPN label. That label > has only local significance on egress. > > Thx, > R. Robert From an operator perspective ease of implementation and migration is critical to deployment. So just as with SR-MPLS where you can prefer SR over mpls and it’s a swap of the “topmost label” in the label stack and all VPN services label at the bottom of the stack remain unchanged. Drawing an analogy to SRv6 scenario that would it be exactly the same it sounds like that L3 VPN vpn label remains intact for vpnv4 vpnv6 scenario and IP native native IPv4 / IPv6 encapsulation IP/MPLS remains the same no change and it’s just the “topmost” label gets swapped out from either legacy mpls LDP/TE to either SR-MPLS or now SRv6 topmost label. The services bottom label are only imposed by ingress PE as with legacy mpls and per SRv6 End SID programming is either PSP or USP popped similar to legacy mpls PHP UHP and VPN label is then processed by the egress PE identical to how it’s done with SR-MPLS or legacy mpls. So from an operator perspective such as Verizon that does make it attractive and an easy swap out migration or new green field implementation to migrate to SRv6 as all the customer Edge PE-CE protocols and encapsulation VPN related services L3 VPN. MVPN EVPN PBB VPWS e-tree e-lan e-line does not change for any services bottom labels. Is that true and if so that is a major design concern for migration of customers to a SRv6 core. With SR-TE now we would have native TE capabilities with SRv6 over SR-MPLS so that we can individually color each per vpn flow to an SR-TE tunnel over SRv6 core. I am stating that correctly that is the major benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS. Gyan Verizon Communications Cell phone 301 502-1347 > >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:45 PM Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 3:50 AM >> To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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)" <[email protected]> >> Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 4:00 AM >> To: "[email protected]" >> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 >> Resent-From: <[email protected]> >> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, Swadesh Agrawal <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]> >> 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/ >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
