Hi Linda, > > Your draft is written very well and clear.
Thank you :-) > > Here are some questions to the draft: > > - Figure 3 (Page 8): Is the "nexthop-list" counted as the "Action" > when the "match" condition is met? Yes. > > - What is the relationship between "nexthop-list" and > "route-attribute"? Route-attributes are properties of the route. Nexthop-list is your action-list. So they are kind of orthogonal. For ex. Route-preference allows route selection across multiple similar routes. Only the route that gets selected will have it¹s nexthop-list applied when a packet hits that route. > > > > > - Why the Route-attribute ranges 0-N, whereas the ³nexthop-list² > starts from 1? > > Route-attributes are optional entities. Whereas there MUST be at least one next-hop for the given match condition. What¹s the point of a route without a nexthop. If you want to ³discard² a packet by the given route, ³discard² is a next-hop. > - What kind of scenario will cause ³Lists of lists², i.e. the ³Chain² > in the ³nexthop-list-member²? > > > > You have a statement in the draft: > > Isn¹t one node supposed to deal with only the outer header? > In a simple case, one node will deal with only the outer header. However if a node is originating a tunneled packet, it might need to send 2 headers over. Other examples include a PW - MPLS over some transport (MPLS or GRE for instance) and VxLAN over IP. draft-bitar-i2rs-service-chaining and draft-hu-i2rs-overlay-use-case could likely use this paradigm as well. Thanks Nitin
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
