Dear all,
I have just uploaded a new Internet-Draft "SRv6 for PPPoE Transport",
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huang-spring-pppoe-srv6/, which replaces
the previous draft-song-spring-pppoe-srv6-01. This new draft will be introduced
in 22th July Spring WG Meeting.
This new draft incorporates the comments raised by the chairs and the working
group on draft-song-spring-pppoe-srv6-01 and makes substantial modifications to
the content.
The main content of the new draft is as follows:
This document proposes a method that employs SRv6 underlay tunnel to transport
PPPoE session information across broadband networks. By leveraging the
programmability of SRv6 SIDs, the approach not only delivers trusted
authentication and secure subscriber access, but also enables operators to
offer differentiated services and flexibly instantiate network functions for
broadband users.
This draft focuses on substantiating the necessity of PPPoE over SRv6 based on
emerging service requirements (Section 2), and on the corresponding PPPoE over
SRv6 encapsulation (Section 3), the SID design philosophy (Section 4), the SRv6
Endpoint behavior (Section 5), and pseudocode-level implementation (Section 6).
The applicability of PPPoE over SRv6 in real-world deployments—including how
the CPE obtains the SRv6 SID of the network anchor and associated network slice
ID and DSCP value, as well as the end-to-end procedure from the first dial-up
to the second dial-up—is out of scope for this document and will be described
in a separate draft.
Regarding the issues in the previous document that violated SRv6 rules, the new
draft has been revised as explained below:
Issue 1:Cross administrative domains:
The draft describes intensive data transmission services where the first
dial-up between CPE and BRAS may be seen as in different administrative
domains, but during the second dial-up, the interface address is either the
service address ABC assigned by the BRAS from the first dial-up, or the
interface address allocated by the network controller through the packet which
destination address is ABC. Thus, the CPE and gateway in the second dial-up can
be considered within the same administrative domain which is under the
management of a single network administrator.
Issue 2: Use of SRv6 SIDs as source addresses: In this new draft, we no longer
use SRv6 SIDs as the source addresses.
Thanks for your review and discussion.
Cancan Huang
China Telecom
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
