Hi Ron,
Similarly I would refrain from using the SR acronym since a key
characteristic of the SR architecture as per RFC8402 is statelessness.
As per current SRv6+ documents, state is required for an intermediate
node to add the relevant next PSSIs in DOH. This is whether they are
domain-wide defined or with local significance (i.e. prepending
short-SID).
Cheers,
Dan B
On 2019-09-25, 8:43 AM, "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.i...@gmail.com
<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Agree with Stuart.
SRinUDP is a well defined solution, let’s not mix things.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Sep 25, 2019, 2:39 PM +0200, Stewart Bryant
<stewart.bry...@gmail.com>, wrote:
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>
<mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>
*Sent:* Monday, September 23, 2019 10:14 PM
*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] 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 <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/External Email:/*/Please use caution when opening links and
attachments / /*/Courriel externe:/*/Soyez prudent avec les liens et
documents joints /
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
