Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Ketan, When the BGP route received at an ingress PE is colored with an extended color community and is being steered over a valid SRv6 Policy associated with SID list as described in Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Re: [spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986 (Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming)

Rajesh, >From 8986 (section 4.16.3 last paragraph): One of the applications of the USD flavor is the case of a Topology Independent Loop-Free Alternate (TI-LFA) in P routers with encapsulation. The USD flavor allows the last SR Segment Endpoint Node in the repair path list to decapsulate the IP

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Ketan, "In some cases a service prefix intending to use flex-algo paths may want fallback on best effort paths when a flex-algo path isn't available. The fallback behavior SHOULD be governed by local policies. The destination address SHOULD contain the best-effort locator based END SID of t

Re: [spring] 答复: SR and DetNet, draft on sr-redundancy-protection

Hi Gyan, Thanks for sharing your view. Just two comments/clarifications: 1, Using SR: Again, it was never a question that SR is a valuable tool to provide explicit routes for DetNet. Adding a figure showing how encapsulation and SR-headers are changed along the path would help a lot for further

Re: [spring] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment/

Once you find yourself needing to include path identifiers in an SR packet, I begin to wonder whether the segment routing design has gone off track. In MPLS we have the ability in both PCE and RSVP to lay out end to end paths in such a way that the forwarding label is the path identifier. If you

Re: [spring] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment/

Dear WG: The WGLC for this document will be extended for a further 2 weeks ending August 4th 2021 so that feedback can be obtained from the WG. Other than the authors there has been little input so please respond on the mailing list with any comments etc. Thanks! Jim, Joel & Bruno From: Jame

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

IMO we could add to the draft a statement that implementation MUST/SHOULD support fallback to any available forwarding plane. But I am not sure if this will not turn out against some implementations which may have problem with that. Order of such fallback is a policy/cfg decision. Likewise before

[spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986 (Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming)

Hi All, What is the use case for End SID with USD ? Mainly USD Flavor. Apart from TILFA/MLA Decapsulation scenarios (When encapsulation is used at transit PLR). Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only ___ spring mailing list spri

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Salih, The preference for steering over SR Policy applies to both SR-MPLS and SRv6. So we are covered from that perspective. I get the impression that this email discussion thread about “fallback” is about when sending over a non-SR Policy based steering mechanism. That too, I get the impre

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Thanks, Ketan. This indicates a preference for steering over SR Policy while using color extended community. Then specify color only bits etc modes for specifying fallbacks if required. Currently it doesn’t talk about flex (but mention mostly IGP path to the next-hop N) and hence it need not ne

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Rajesh, I think there might be some confusion here with the mix-up between a draft which is past WGLC and an individual draft? Would it be possible to keep their discussions on separate threads? However, since I am an author on both, I would like to clarify is that "the rules" are merely be

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Ketan, As per CAR draft - For Intent service Route (IGP Flex-Algo first then BGP CAR then SR Policy): So below must be the rules right ? BGP next hop is not reachable return (just for reachability). Resolve SRv6 Service SID for forwarding(To find IGP flex algo).if successfully resolves then

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Salih, Could you please check the following regarding the choice/fallback when using SR Policy based steering? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-13#section-8.4 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-13#sectio

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Ketan, 1 clarification query: With flex algo and SRTE policies, service routes can carry color extended communities. Now for the ingress, how to decide whether to resolve over SRv6 Service SID (to choose flex algo) OR over BGP Protocol next hop (to choose SRTE)? In a domain both can be prese

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Shraddha, As clarified a short while ago on the same thread, the draft talks about two SRv6-based transport mechanisms. I believe your comments are not related to the SR Policy based steering mechanisms. We already have mechanisms defined for fallback in that case. Since the draft is coveri

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Resending with individual email addressed trimmed From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: 22 July 2021 13:13 To: Rajesh M ; Rajesh M ; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com Cc: spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Rajesh, My apologies for the delay in my response. However, some of my co-authors and other WG members have already clarified this point. Let me try to summarize. The draft covers two SRv6 based mechanisms for the transport of services between SRv6 PEs. (1) using SR Policy based steering (i.