Re: [spring] SR-MPLS over IPv6？

[Stewart Bryant]

I agree.

Inclusion of the term MPLS would cause confusion with 
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip, which is entitled SR-MPLS over IP. The 
design decribed in draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip works over both IPv4 and 
IPv6. Also course, as Ron states, such a name is not a true refelction 
of the design.

- Stewart

On 24/09/2019 05:01, Ron Bonica wrote:

Cheng,

I have no problem with changing the name. SR-MPLS over IPv6 may not be 
appropriate, because MPLS is not part of the solution.

Something like SR-extensible-6 or SR-compressed-6 might work.

Ron

Juniper Business Use Only

*From:*Chengli (Cheng Li) <chengl...@huawei.com>
*Sent:* Monday, September 23, 2019 10:14 PM
*To:* Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; Jeff Tantsura 
<jefftant.i...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* SING Team <s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com>; EXT - 
daniel.bern...@bell.ca <daniel.bern...@bell.ca>; SPRING WG List 
<spring@ietf.org>
*Subject:* RE: [spring] SR-MPLS over IPv6？

Oh, I misunderstood the BSID in CRH in last email, sorry for that.

Yes, the SID is not an IPv6 address in CRH, but a 16/32 bit value like 
MPLS label.

Therefore, IMHO, it may not comply with RFC8402: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8402#section-3.1.3 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8402*section-3.1.3__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!WoPYW9IpnDYjcdhli0b80_-KyrOIBYFAZfip_NxPLB1-Bt7oHjt8uGU68K49j2yk$>

If possible, I suggest to change the name of SRv6+, since it is not 
SRv6 based. Something like SR-MPLS over IPv6 maybe better?

Thanks,

Cheng

*From:*Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
*Sent:* Monday, September 23, 2019 10:45 PM
*To:* Chengli (Cheng Li) <chengl...@huawei.com 
<mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>>; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* SING Team <s.i..n.g.team.0...@gmail.com 
<mailto:s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com>>; EXT - daniel.bern...@bell.ca 
<mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca> <daniel.bern...@bell.ca 
<mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org 
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
*Subject:* RE: [spring] A note on CRH and on going testing

Cheng,

In SRv6+, it would be very difficult to pollute the architecture because:

  * A SID is either 16-or 32-bits long
  * An IPv6 address is 128-bits long
  * Therefore, it is impossible to copy a SID to an IPv6 address or an
    IPv6 address to a SID

The binding SID will be a 16-or 32-bit topological instruction, found 
in the CRH. Like all topological instructions, it will identify an 
SFIB entry.

There will be a new SFIB entry type that will contain the following 
information:

  * An IPv6 Destination Address (to be used in the outer IPv6 header)
  * A list of SIDs (to be used in the CRH

         Ron

Juniper Business Use Only

*From:* Chengli (Cheng Li) <chengl...@huawei.com 
<mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 22, 2019 12:01 AM
*To:* Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net <mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>; 
Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com <mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* SING Team <s.i..n.g.team.0...@gmail.com 
<mailto:s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com>>; EXT - daniel.bern...@bell.ca 
<mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca> <daniel.bern...@bell.ca 
<mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org 
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
*Subject:* RE: [spring] A note on CRH and on going testing

Hi Ron,

Good to hear that. Looking forward to seeing it in the next revision.

But I am curious that is a bind SID in CRH an interface IPv6 address 
only without any other semantics? Just like the other SIDs you 
mentioned in CRH.

If not, this binding SID should not be introduced in to CRH since it 
pollutes the architecture.

If yes, what’s the standard for an Interface IPv6 address?

Thanks for confirming that BSID is needed in CRH. I totally agree with 
you.

Best regards,
Cheng

------------------------------------------------------------------------

李呈Cheng Li
Email: chengl...@huawei.com <mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>

*From: *Ron Bonica<rbon...@juniper.net <mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>

*To: *Jeff Tantsura<jefftant.i...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>;Chengli (Cheng 
Li)<chengl...@huawei.com <mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>>

*Cc: *SING Team<s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com 
<mailto:s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com>>;EXT - 
daniel.bernier<daniel.bern...@bell.ca 
<mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>>;SPRING WG List<spring@ietf.org 
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>

*Subject: *RE: [spring] A note on CRH and on going testing

*Time: *2019-09-22 04:37:17

Jeff,

After an off-line conversation with the SRv6+ implementors, we decided 
that it would be trivial to add a binding SID to SRv6+. So, we will do 
that in the next version of the draft.

In keeping with RFC 8200, it will prepend only. Since the CRH is 
short, insertion is not needed.

Ron

Juniper Business Use Only

*From:* Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Saturday, September 21, 2019 4:32 PM
*To:* Chengli (Cheng Li) <chengl...@huawei.com 
<mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net 
<mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>
*Cc:* SING Team <s.i..n.g.team.0...@gmail.com 
<mailto:s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com>>; EXT - daniel.bern...@bell.ca 
<mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca> <daniel.bern...@bell.ca 
<mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org 
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
*Subject:* RE: [spring] A note on CRH and on going testing

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your comments, exactly, BSID MPLS label = CRH value :)

Cheers,

Jeff

On Sep 20, 2019, 11:09 AM -0700, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net 
<mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>, wrote:

    Hi Jeff,

    It would be easy enough to add a binding SID to SRv6+. Given
    customer demand, I would not be averse to adding one.

    However, there is another way to get exactly the same behavior on
    the forwarding plane without adding a new SID type.

    Assume that on Node N, we have the following SFIB entry:

      * SID: 123
      * IPv6 address: 2001:db8::1
      * SID type: prefix SID

    Now assume that was also have the following route on Node N:

    2001:db8::1 -> SRv6+ tunnel with specified destination address and CRH

    This gives you the same forwarding behavior as a binding SID.

    Ron

    Juniper Business Use Only

    *From:* spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org
    <mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of* Jeff Tantsura
    *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2019 10:53 PM
    *To:* Chengli (Cheng Li) <chengl...@huawei.com
    <mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>>
    *Cc:* SING Team <s.i..n.g.team.0...@gmail.com
    <mailto:s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com>>; EXT -
    daniel.bern...@bell.ca <mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>
    <daniel.bern...@bell.ca <mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>>; SPRING
    WG List <spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
    *Subject:* Re: [spring] A note on CRH and on going testing

    There’s number of solutions on the market that extensively use
    BSID for multi-domain as well as multi-layer signaling.

    Regards,

    Jeff


    On Sep 19, 2019, at 19:49, Chengli (Cheng Li)
    <chengl...@huawei.com <mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>> wrote:

        +1.

        As I mentioned before, Binding SID is not only for shortening
        SID list.

        We should see the important part of binding SID in
        inter-domain routing,  since it hides the details of
        intra-domain. Security and Privacy are always important.

        Since the EH insertion related text will be removed from SRv6
        NP draft, I don’t think anyone will still say we don’t need
        binding SID.

        Let’s be honest, Encap mode Binding SID is very useful in
        inter-domain routing. It is not secure to share internal info
        outside a trusted network domain.

        Cheng

        *From:* spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of*
        Bernier, Daniel
        *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2019 11:36 PM
        *To:* SING Team <s.i..n.g.team.0...@gmail.com
        <mailto:s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com>>
        *Cc:* 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
        *Subject:* Re: [spring] A note on CRH and on going testing

        +1

        This is what we did on our multi-cloud trials.

        Encap with Binding SID to avoid inter-domain mapping + I don’t
        need to have some sort of inter-domain alignment of PSSIs

        Dan

        On 2019-09-19, 11:18 AM, "spring on behalf of SING Team"
        <spring-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>on
        behalf of s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com
        <mailto:s.i.n.g.team.0...@gmail.com>> wrote:

        Hi Andrew,

        Good to hear that reality experiment :)

        But is it secure to share internal SID-IP mappings outside a
        trusted network domain?

        Or is there an analogue like Binding SID of SRv6, in SRv6+?

        Btw, PSSI and PPSI can not do that now, right?

        Best regards,
        Moonlight Thoughts


        (mail failure, try to cc to spring again.)

        On 09/19/2019 17:49, Andrew Alston
        <mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
        Hi Guys,

        I thought this may be of interest in light of discussions
        around deployments and running code - because one of the
        things we've been testing is inter-domain traffic steering
        with CRH on both our DPDK implementation and another
        implementation.

        So - the setup we used last night:

        6 systems in a lab - one of which linked to the open
        internet.  Call these S1 -> S6
        3 systems in a lab on the other side of the world - no peering
        between the networks in question.  Call these R1 -> R3

        We applied a SID list on S1, that steered S1 -> S2 -> S3 -> S6
        -> R1 -> R3, with the relevant mappings from the CRH SID's to
        the underlying addressing (S2 had a mapping for the SID for
        S3, S3 had a mapping for the SID corresponding to S6, S6 had a
        mapping for the SID corresponding to R1 etc)

        Then we sent some packets - and the test was entirely successful.

        What this effectively means is that if two providers agree to
        share the SID mappings - it is possible to steer across one
        network, out over an open path, and across a remote network.
        Obviously this relies on the fact that EH's aren't being
        dropped by intermediate providers, but this isn't something
        we're seeing.

        Combine this with the BGP signaling draft - and the SID's can
        then be signaled between the providers - work still going on
        with regards to this for testing purposes. Just as a note -
        there would be no requirement to share the full SID mapping or
        topologies when doing this with BGP - the requirement would be
        only to share the relevant SID's necessary for the steering.

        I can say from our side - with various other providers - this
        is something that we see *immense* use case for - for a whole
        host of reasons.

        Thanks

        Andrew


        _______________________________________________
        spring mailing list
        spr...@ietf..org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Spring
        
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Spring__;!8WoA6RjC81c!U4_s7somKP_KyQ3viBMIcXpk_pTMYlY11nTHMB2b-JTdTLKi9mnrF1wu_DoXwIdf$>

        _______________________________________________
        spring mailing list
        spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
        
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!8WoA6RjC81c!U4_s7somKP_KyQ3viBMIcXpk_pTMYlY11nTHMB2b-JTdTLKi9mnrF1wu_Ll7ej5P$>


_______________________________________________
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