Re: [spring] General Proxy behavior in SR Service Programming
In the shared memory case, indeed, it is very reasonable to look at the proxy as an arm of the function. In SFC, we do look at it (the proxy as an arm of the SF) that way more generally. We can do that because the SFC architecture calls that out. Given that the other cases do involve network transfer of packets, and thus are visible, and given that neither the SR architecture, the MPLS architecture, nor the SR architecture call out such things, it seems that we need to be explicit. To be clear, I think it is a very reasonable approach. Much mroe reasonable, for example, than NAT in its various incarnations. All I am asking is that we state explicitly that we understand that as an architectural component this violates existing rules, and does so over a limited scope so as to preserve the desired / needed behavior over the larger scope. The one thing we may need to be clear about is the degree of proximity required between the SF and its serving proxy. If we treat this as legitimate arbitrary networking, it gets out of hand. Yours, Joel On 7/26/2020 3:33 PM, Francois Clad (fclad) wrote: Hi Joel, Thank you for your email. A proxy and its associated SF can be seen from the network as a single entity: a packet enters this entity from the network, gets processed by the SF, and exits towards the network. The packet modifications that occur between the entry and exit of this entity are compliant with existing standards. Whatever happens between the proxy and SF is internal processing and invisible to the network. However, a network operator or controller needs some information about the proxy’s internal behavior to determine an appropriate SID-list through the SF and possibly configure the proxy. Cheers, Francois On 25/07/2020 20:23, "spring on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" wrote: Let me start by saying that I understand and support what the draft is trying to do. While I like SFC, I am under no illusions that it is or should be the only answer to service chaining / service programming. Further, I understand what the proxies are for. They seem necessary. To deploy this stuff, we have to be able to work with older equipment. Proxies seem the best way to do so. The document is even clear that proxy is a new kind of thing. Good. In order to do its job, and as I read this document, the SR proxies (of various kinds) violate the rules for MPLS processing, SRH processing, and IPv6 processing at various points. They have to. It seems to me that we need to accept this requirement, and state it clearly. Most likely, this would suggest that we will want some form of signoff from the MPLS and 6man working groups that these violations, for these specific reasons, are acceptable to the community. Personally, I would rather have the discussion soon, rather than pretending it is a non-issue and having the discussion during IETF last call. Maybe I am misreading, and things are less conflicted. That would be great. Yours, Joel ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] General Proxy behavior in SR Service Programming
Hi Joel, Thank you for your email. A proxy and its associated SF can be seen from the network as a single entity: a packet enters this entity from the network, gets processed by the SF, and exits towards the network. The packet modifications that occur between the entry and exit of this entity are compliant with existing standards. Whatever happens between the proxy and SF is internal processing and invisible to the network. However, a network operator or controller needs some information about the proxy’s internal behavior to determine an appropriate SID-list through the SF and possibly configure the proxy. Cheers, Francois On 25/07/2020 20:23, "spring on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" wrote: Let me start by saying that I understand and support what the draft is trying to do. While I like SFC, I am under no illusions that it is or should be the only answer to service chaining / service programming. Further, I understand what the proxies are for. They seem necessary. To deploy this stuff, we have to be able to work with older equipment. Proxies seem the best way to do so. The document is even clear that proxy is a new kind of thing. Good. In order to do its job, and as I read this document, the SR proxies (of various kinds) violate the rules for MPLS processing, SRH processing, and IPv6 processing at various points. They have to. It seems to me that we need to accept this requirement, and state it clearly. Most likely, this would suggest that we will want some form of signoff from the MPLS and 6man working groups that these violations, for these specific reasons, are acceptable to the community. Personally, I would rather have the discussion soon, rather than pretending it is a non-issue and having the discussion during IETF last call. Maybe I am misreading, and things are less conflicted. That would be great. Yours, Joel ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
[spring] General Proxy behavior in SR Service Programming
become a chair issue, in which case, I will look at it through a different lens. Heck, I may even disagree with myself.> Let me start by saying that I understand and support what the draft is trying to do. While I like SFC, I am under no illusions that it is or should be the only answer to service chaining / service programming. Further, I understand what the proxies are for. They seem necessary. To deploy this stuff, we have to be able to work with older equipment. Proxies seem the best way to do so. The document is even clear that proxy is a new kind of thing. Good. In order to do its job, and as I read this document, the SR proxies (of various kinds) violate the rules for MPLS processing, SRH processing, and IPv6 processing at various points. They have to. It seems to me that we need to accept this requirement, and state it clearly. Most likely, this would suggest that we will want some form of signoff from the MPLS and 6man working groups that these violations, for these specific reasons, are acceptable to the community. Personally, I would rather have the discussion soon, rather than pretending it is a non-issue and having the discussion during IETF last call. Maybe I am misreading, and things are less conflicted. That would be great. Yours, Joel ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
