Dear Chairs & WG As the authors have described the C-SID draft is a single solution for the SRv6 data plane compression solution with two different endpoint flavors for SRv6 PGM Endpoint behaviors End and End.x, called NEXT-C-SID & REPLACE-C-SID, similar to existing SRv6 PGM endpoint flavors PSP, USP, USD.
C-SID is a combination of the two drafts below: C-SID https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ Combination of the two drafts below: G-SID - Generalized SID https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03 G-SID is renamed to C-SID and G-SRv6 compression sub path is renamed to C-SID Sequence in REPLACE-C-SID endpoint flavor in the above C-SID draft. G-SID container concept and breaks out the common locator part of the SRv6 SID and trailing bits for the encapsulation header savings. G-SID draft section 8 shows interoperability status applied to the C-SID draft. SRv6 uSID micro-segment https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10 uSID is renamed to NEXT-C-SID endpoint flavor in the above C-SID draft. uSID Micro-segment introduces a LIB and GIB local uSID and Global uSID concept of IDs within a container. C-SID draft introduces a new endpoint flavor option which is a combination of the two drafts above called NEXT-AND-REPLCE-CSID which provides the best efficiency in encapsulation size with increased complexity. Kind Regards Gyan On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:30 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
