Rishabh, Transport SID with a service on top can’t be a BoS label, there’s s service label below, since a service is associated with a particular node, there would be at least a N-SID associated with the service node. It seems like B-SID behavior is the correct one, when R-SID is looked up and popped, it would yield: replication (as programmed by a controller, since there’s no state) + new label stack associated with the new, post replication/branching path that is imposed on top of existing label stack, so service label ( + optionally more transport labels) are preserved.
Cheers, Jeff On Jul 1, 2020, 12:40 PM -0700, Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com>, wrote: > Robert, > > > A) Firmly state that replication SID MUST be the last one on the stack > > B) Instead of real SID after the replication SID provide a binding SID > > which locally will be mapped to a different SID list imposed to each > > replicated flow. > > We would be fine with A), but we don't want to exclude possibility of > something like what you describe in B. > > -Rishabh > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:27 PM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Rishabh, > > > > > Of course, care must be > > > taken to avoid the "explosion" as you describe it. G-SID-2 has to map > > > to a unique node; for example, it may be an Anycast-SID that takes > > > packet to distinct nodes from each of the downstream node, or the > > > downstream nodes can be border nodes connecting to other segment > > > routing domains where G-SID-2 resolves to distinct nodes in each > > > domain. > > > > I think you are stretching it too thin. > > > > See even if G-SID-2 is anycast SID you have zero assurance that physical > > nodes packets will land on would be at all diverse. > > > > Likewise crossing domains yet providing identical global SID now to be a > > different node in each such domain to me is not a realistic example. > > > > I think we have two options: > > > > A) Firmly state that replication SID MUST be the last one on the stack > > > > B) Instead of real SID after the replication SID provide a binding SID > > which locally will be mapped to a different SID list imposed to each > > replicated flow. > > > > What is currently in the draft seems to be very counterintuitive and IMHO > > will result in operational difficulties. > > > > Thx a lot, > > R. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
