On September 30, 2020 at 9:18:37 AM, Pablo Camarillo wrote:
Pablo: Hi! Just leaving below the points I still want to talk about. Thanks! Alvaro. ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ... > > (1b) It would be nice if the behavior in §4.1.1 were also specified > > using pseudocode... ... > §4.1.1 is called from different places, while processing different > behaviors. Is it expected that the "local configuration" will cover each > behavior individually, or will the operator be able to configure a single > policy for all? In either case, it would be good to mention it. > [PC2] In the document we've left 'local configuration' up to an [PC2] implementation. Whether an implementation implements the local [PC2] configuration on an interface as an ACL or globally for all SIDs or per [PC2] SID via some API is not for this document to decide, and has no impact [PC2] on interoperability. True, it has no impact on interoperability, but it can have an impact on the operation of the network. While not including details about local configuration, I would like to see some guidance on the definition of proper policies. For example, considering your example of allowing ICMPv6, OAM may be important, but forwarding a packet that is not in line with the behavior would not be. Along those lines, the headend policy should be consistent with the behavior and any local configuration. This expectation should also be mentioned somewhere. ... > > (3) The description of the flavors in §4.16 is also unclear. > ... > For an endpoint behavior that indicates more than one flavor, which one > should be applied? > > For some of the behaviors, 29 (End with PSP&USD) for example, the flavor > used seems to depend on the number of SLs: if received with SL == 0, then > the flavor is USD, but if received with SL == 1 then use PSP. But for other > behaviors, 30 (End with USP&USD) for example, which flavor should be applied > if both are supported? > [PC2] When a behavior (e.g. End) is combined with one or more flavors (e.g. [PC2] USP & USD), their combined pseudocode is what determines the packet [PC2] processing. In the specific example of USP&USD (when SL=0), the [PC2] pseudocode would end up first removing the processed SRH and then, [PC2] depending on the next upper-layer header, also removing the outer IPv6 [PC2] encapsulation header if/when there is an inner IP packet. Oh, it's the combination; that is not mentioned anywhere. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
