Linda,

In context of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip it would be IP->SRinUDP->SR-native-> 
SRinUDP->IP

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jul 18, 2019, 9:16 AM -0700, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>, 
wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> For SDWAN case, the Source node and Destination nodes (a.k.a. SDWAN edge 
> nodes) are IP based.
>
> So it should be reversed, IP segments -> SR segments which include both SRv6 
> & MPLS-SR -> IP segments
>
> Linda
>
> From: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 5:48 PM
> To: spring <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>; 徐小虎(义先) 
> <[email protected]>; Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [spring] Seeking comments for 
> draft-dunbar-sr-sdwan-over-hybrid-networks: is it appropriate for 
> not-directly connect SDWAN edges to use GRE/VxLAN header bits to indicate the 
> desired SR path?
>
> Linda,
>
> What you want is to use native MPLS when available and encapsulate MPLS 
> packets in IP/UDP when you need to travers IP, you destination in the imposed 
> IP header would be that of the next SR capable device as described in 
> draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> On Jul 15, 2019, 3:24 PM -0700, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>, 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > The draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip only has MPLS packets being tunneled by IP, 
> > but not reversed (IP packets tunneled over MPLS).
> >
> > Do you think it worthwhile to add some similar sections (of course with 
> > different content), such as Forwarding entry Construction, forwarding 
> > procedures as in draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip?
> >
> > Linda
> >
> > From: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 4:03 PM
> > To: spring <[email protected]>; Linda Dunbar 
> > <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>; 徐小虎(义先) 
> > <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [spring] Seeking comments for 
> > draft-dunbar-sr-sdwan-over-hybrid-networks: is it appropriate for 
> > not-directly connect SDWAN edges to use GRE/VxLAN header bits to indicate 
> > the desired SR path?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > take a look at draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jeff
> > On Jul 8, 2019, 11:45 PM -0700, 徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]>, wrote:
> > > Hi Linda,
> > >
> > > Why not directly use the MPLSoUDP encapsulation to carry the B-SID label 
> > > so as to indicate the preferred path? For more details, please read 
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dukes-spring-sr-for-sdwan-02#section-7.3
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Xiaohu
> > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > From:Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>
> > > > Send Time:2019年7月9日(星期二) 06:26
> > > > To:Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>; SPRING WG 
> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject:Re: [spring] Seeking comments for 
> > > > draft-dunbar-sr-sdwan-over-hybrid-networks: is it appropriate for 
> > > > not-directly connect SDWAN edges to use GRE/VxLAN header bits to 
> > > > indicate the desired SR path?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I meant to ask:
> > > >
> > > > When the SDWAN edge nodes are NOT directly connected to the PEs of SR 
> > > > domain, is it appropriate for SDWAN edge nodes to use GRE/VxLAN header 
> > > > bits to indicate the desired SR Path?
> > > >
> > > > Linda
> > > >
> > > > From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:11 PM
> > > > To: SPRING WG <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: [spring] Seeking comments for 
> > > > draft-dunbar-sr-sdwan-over-hybrid-networks: is it appropriate for 
> > > > not-directly connect SDWAN edges to use GRE/VxLAN header bits to 
> > > > indicate the desired SR path?
> > > >
> > > > SD-WAN, as described by ONUG (Open Network User Group), is about 
> > > > pooling WAN bandwidth from multiple service providers to get better WAN 
> > > > bandwidth management, visibility & control.
> > > > Because of the ephemeral property of the selected Cloud DCs, an 
> > > > enterprise or its network service provider may not have the direct 
> > > > links to the Cloud DCs that are optimal for hosting the enterprise’s 
> > > > specific workloads/Apps. Under those circumstances, SD-WAN is a very 
> > > > flexible choice to interconnect the enterprise on-premises data centers 
> > > > & branch offices to its desired Cloud DCs...
> > > > However, SD-WAN paths over public internet can have unpredictable 
> > > > performance, especially over long distances and cross state/country 
> > > > boundaries. Therefore, it is highly desirable to place as much as 
> > > > possible the portion of SD-WAN paths over service provider VPN (e.g. 
> > > > enterprise’s existing VPN) that have guaranteed SLA and to minimize the 
> > > > distance/segments over public internet.
> > > >
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-sr-sdwan-over-hybrid-networks/
> > > >  describes a method to enforce a SD-WAN path’s head-end selected route 
> > > > traversing through a list of specific nodes of multiple network 
> > > > segments without requiring the nodes in each network segments to have 
> > > > the intelligence (or maintaining states) of selecting next hop or next 
> > > > segments.
> > > >
> > > > When a SR domain has multiple PEs with ports facing the external 
> > > > networks (such as the public internet or LTE termination), SD-WAN paths 
> > > > can traverse the SR domain via different ingress/egress PEs resulting 
> > > > in different E2E performance.
> > > >
> > > > Even with the same ingress/egress, some flows may need different 
> > > > segments across the SR Domain. It is not practical, or even possible, 
> > > > for PEs to determine which Apps’ flows should egress.
> > > > Segment Routing can be used to steer packets (or path) to traverse the 
> > > > explicit egress node, or explicit segments through the SR Domain based 
> > > > on the SLA requested by the SD-WAN head-end nodes.
> > > >
> > > > When the SDWAN edge nodes are directly connected to the PEs of SR 
> > > > domain, is it appropriate for SDWAN edge nodes to use GRE/VxLAN header 
> > > > bits to indicate the desired SR Path?
> > > >
> > > > We are looking for feedback, criticisms, or suggestion on the the 
> > > > proposed approach.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Linda
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > spring mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to