Dear Chairs & Weiqiang,
As I presented before, the CSID draft is just only one solution with two
different flavors. Even there are some others, the CSID has the most supporters
and has finished multi-vendor interworking test and field test, including my
company ZTE. Especially, CSID is the most compatible the standard SRv6
dataplane. It's benificial for SRv6 industry if the WG could adopt the CSID
draft.
Best regards,
Aihua
原始邮件
发件人：WeiqiangCheng
收件人：'Joel M. Halpern';[email protected];
日 期 ：2021年09月08日 11:25
主 题 ：Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing
segment routing over IPv6
Dear Chairs,
Many thanks for your hard working.
We are happy to see that the CSID draft has significant interest to be
adopted as a WG document.
Regarding the dataplane, the authors believe that the CSID draft contains
only one dataplane solution with two different flavors[1]: NEXT-CSID-FLAVOR
and REPLACE-CSID-FLAVOR, rather than two dataplane solutions.
Both the flavors are defined based on the SRv6 data plane(one data plane),
and the SIDs with these two flavors can be encoded in a single SRH just like
we can encode PSP Flavor SIDs and USD flavor SIDs together in a SRH.
The inter-op test of CSIDs had been done almost one year ago[2], and
everything was OK.
Furthermore, the mechanism defined in the draft has been stable and mature.
With the consensus, the authors hope WG can consider to adopt the CSID
draft.
Best regards,
Weiqiang
on behalf of CSID authors
[1]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986#section-4.16
[2].
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-co
mpression-02#section-11
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: spring [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
发送时间: 2021年9月7日 01:27
收件人: [email protected]
主题: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing
segment routing over IPv6
Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly. There
is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane
solution to compressing segment routing over IPv6.
As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make.
There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the
CSID draft for addressing the above.
However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would
like to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical
problem. The CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions. The above
rough consensus is for one dataplane solution. Does the working group
want to choose one? Do the authors want to suggest that one of the two
is the one we should standardize, and get working group agreement?
Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and
solve the problem afterwards? (That itself does not solve the problem,
it merely kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid
putting the WG in conflict with itself?
As a loosely related side node, the chairs will also observe that we do
not see an obstacle to informational or experimental publication of
other solutions, as long as there is sufficient energy in the working
group to deal with those. Also, only documents for which there is at
least one implementation will be progressed this way.
Thank you,
Bruno, Jim, and Joel
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
