Cheng,
The CRH is a building block. It has exactly one function. That is, to steer a
packet along its delivery path.
The CRH does not attempt to deliver parameters or metadata to service function
instances. It relies on other mechanisms. One possibility is a destination
options header that precedes the CRH. I am sure that there are other
mechanisms. CRH should be compatible with all of them.
Personally, I am not an NSH expert. Maybe someone who is can speak up.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c...@huawei.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:59 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your reply.
Regarding NSH, are you saying to use CRH as a tunnel transport encapsulation
between two SFF nodes?
Or we can use a single CRH for steering packet through all the SFF nodes that
the NSH packet should visit?
Regarding using the first DOH, how to do that without the container design by
your draft[1]?
Or the same option TLV will bind to different behaviors on different nodes
according to the node local configuration?
Best,
Cheng
[1].
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04..txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UD4vf0darQ9cskFhH1fJ9jwZJ-nIciQxgVnf1219YuyyaNcgvNdRUdkjwNmXwyHT$>.
From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 10:17 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c...@huawei.com<mailto:c...@huawei.com>>; 6man
<6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Cheng,
The sole purpose of a Routing header is to steer a packet along a specified
path to its destination. It shouldn't attempt to do any more than that.
The CRH does not attempt to deliver service function information to service
function instances. However, it is compatible with:
* The Network Service Header (NSH)
* The Destination Options header that precedes the Routing header
Both of these can be used to deliver service function information to service
function instances.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c...@huawei.com<mailto:c...@huawei.com>>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 2:56 AM
To: 6man <6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>>;
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; Ron Bonica
<rbon...@juniper.net<mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>
Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron,
When reading the CRH draft, I have a question about how CRH support SFC?
For example, we have a SID List [S1, S2, S3, S4, S5], and S3 is a SFC related
SID, how to indicate that? By PSSI? [1]
But how to know which segment endpoint node/egress node should process this
PSSI? At the beginning of the SRm6 design, this is described in [2]. But you
deleted the containers [2].
Without that, I don't really understand how SFC can be supported.
Best,
Cheng
[1].
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six-01#section-4.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six-01*section-4.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UD4vf0darQ9cskFhH1fJ9jwZJ-nIciQxgVnf1219YuyyaNcgvNdRUdkjwP15i-Xa$>
[2].
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04..txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UD4vf0darQ9cskFhH1fJ9jwZJ-nIciQxgVnf1219YuyyaNcgvNdRUdkjwNmXwyHT$>.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
