Cheng,
IPv6 defines many Routing headers. The Routing header is designed to steer
packets along a delivery path. Other headers are designed to deliver
information to nodes along the delivery path.
The Routing header should not attempt to subsume the function of other IPv6
extension headers.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c...@huawei.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:01 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; spring
<spring@ietf.org>
Cc: spring <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Reply: RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your reply.
I finally get that CRH only support steering packet along a path.
But I am still curious that how to support a specific function/behavior at the
specific node by using CRH. Can you please explain that?
Since this is a very basic function we want in the network. SFC needs that, all
the services needs that if there is any function/service should be performed at
the middle nodes along the path.
We want to provide an integrated service for our customers, because our
customers want a integrated solution for providing service, like SFC, VPN, they
don’t like us to provide a brick that still need to combine with other many
bricks.
IMHO, when comparing solutions, we should compare the same functionality. So
could you please provide more info of how CRH supporting services? It will
help people to evaluate the CRH, which can help CRH I think.
Thanks,
Cheng
________________________________
李呈 Cheng Li
Mobile: +86-15116983550<tel:+86-15116983550>
Email: c...@huawei.com<mailto:c...@huawei.com>
From: Ron Bonica<rbon...@juniper.net<mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>
To: Chengli (Cheng
Li)<c...@huawei.com<mailto:c...@huawei.com>>;6man<6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>>;spring<spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Cc: spring<spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Time: 2020-05-24 09:24:55
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<mailto:c...@huawei.com>>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:59 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net<mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>; 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?
[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
