On 29/05/2020, 12:25, "ipv6 on behalf of Peter Psenak" <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
On 29/05/2020 12:12, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:11 AM Peter Psenak
> <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> On 28/05/2020 18:55, Ron Bonica wrote:
> > Weibin,
> >
> > Inline…..
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> >
> > *From:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
> <weibin.w...@nokia-sbell.com <mailto:weibin.w...@nokia-sbell.com>>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM
> > *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com
> <mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>; Ron Bonica
> > <rbon...@juniper.net <mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>; Joel M.
> Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>
> > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org
> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org>>
> > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
> Size of
> > CR in CRH
> >
> > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > After reading through many mails related to CRH in list, I found
all
> > CRH-SIDs (allocated to prefix-sid <loosely forwarding>and
> Adj-sid<strict
> > forwarding>) are of local significance in fact, its operation
> actually
> > is not same as MPLS Label nor SR-MPLS label (such as domain-wide
> prefix
> > SID/label), all CRH-SIDs are locally allocated by node itself
> based on
> > local FIB6, independent of other CRH-SID allocated by other nodes
> in CRH
> > domain; so every node (Maybe except ingress PE of CRH domain)
> has no
> > useful to learn other SIDs allocated by other nodes by
IGP-extension
> > advertising. Its deployment must have controller (considering
> dynamic
> > mechanism), the controller learn all CRH-SIDs from each node to
> program
> > the source path under path calculation requirement from ingress PE.
> >
> > [RB] Absolutely correct !!
>
> if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source routing
> going to be supported?
>
> Or is CRH only supposed to be used for strict hop-by-hop source
> routing?
> If so, the use case would be quite limited.
>
> Honestly, strictly technically, I do not see much difference between
> CRH
> and RFC8663 & RFC4023 combo. Former uses an extra extension header,
the
> latter uses the next-header. Rest looks same.
>
>
> Gyan> Peter - You mentioned a key point which is is a major
> difference.
>
> I thank you for pointing out this critical point for everyone in both
> Spring WG & 6MAN WG -now one big happy family🙏😀
>
> With RFC 8663 SR-MPLS over
> IPV6 using RFC 4023 w/o GRE with IPv6 encap here is what the end result
> of the packet looks like:
>
> SR-MPLS over IPv6 = Next header encapsulation
>
> IPv6 | SR-MPLS |. Customer payload
>
> Operators wanting CRH don’t want the MPLS Layer 2 1/2 MPLS data plane
> insertion into the packet mucking up the packet and want to stay clear
> of MPLS since they want a clean and pure IPV6 packet that follows RFC
> 8200 IPV6 specification.
you don't want MPLS, so you wrap the same data to a new extension header
and give it a new name. And you suddenly like it. Hmm, does not sound
like a solid technical argument to me.
Wh> well said. On top we end up with reinventing the wheel and redoing what is
already done.
thanks,
Peter
>
> So the use case for RFC 8663 is very different as it is widely deployed
> for interworking SR-MPLS with SRV6 - Outlined in Mirsky draft below:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-06
>
> CRH is no different then using any other routing header proposal such as
> 6lo for RPL.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8138
>
> CRH Packet format:
>
> IPV6 CRH | Customer payload
>
> The additional encapsulation makes a big difference and it’s really
> apples versus oranges and not the same at all.
>
>
> Why would any operator use SR-MPLS over IP to for steering traffic if
> they have an existing IPV6 data plane they want to utilize.
>
> They would use SRv6 or CRH and would pick CRH to avoid MSD (maximum sid
> depth) issues for long strict paths and not have to deal with extra
> complexity of all the compression variants.
>
>
> Decision tree:
> If an operator wanted an MPLS data plane variant they would go with
> SR-MPLS but if they want IPV6 data plane variant they obviously would
> pick an option that uses IPv6 data plane and that would be the SRV6 or
CRH.
>
> In order to even remotely justify from my point of view that SR-MPLS
> over IPv6 would used for anything other than the obvious “interworking”
> between SR-MPLS and SRV6, you would really have to prove that an
> operator is willing to add MPLS into the mix when they want IPV6. Not
> possible.
>
> I can guarantee no operator would do that.
>
>
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>
>
> >
> > I suggested you should describe more detail about how to create
> CRH-SID
> > entry (in CRH-FIB) in this CRH draft, is it based on local FIB6,
> if it
> > is, how to do synchronization between CRH-FIB and FIB6?
> >
> > [RB] In some deployment scenarios, the IPv6 FIB and the CRH-FIB are
> > populated by an IGP. Please review and comment on the IS-IS CRH
> document
> >
>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions/>.
> I
> > am excited to collaborate with you on that .
> >
> > [RB] In other deployment scenarios, the IPv6 FIB and / or the
> CRH-FIB
> > are populated by a controller. If you are interested in that
> scenario,
> > again, we would be excited to collaborate with you.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > Above is my understanding, if not right,pls correct me.
> >
> > Wang Weibin
> >
> > *From:*ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>>> *On
> > Behalf Of *Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > *Sent:* 2020年5月28日19:46
> > *To:* Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper.....@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>>>; Joel M. Halpern
> > <j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>
> <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>>
> > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
> <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org> <mailto:6...@ietf.org
> <mailto:6...@ietf.org>>>
> > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
> Size of
> > CR in CRH
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is
> clear to
> > me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment
Routing
> > (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only supports
> > prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two "forwarding
> methods".
> >
> >
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22#section-4
> >
>
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22*section-4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VMgRZ_fS_8pBN886aeeU1sFZpteVAkwQNu6xqWRsR27VhEn_wpAuXmcCngHDrhN8$>
> >
> > o Forward the packet to the next-hop along the least-cost
> path to
> > *>>> Prefix SID*
> >
> > the next segment endpoint.
> >
> > o Forward the packet through a specified interface to the
> next *>>>
> > Adjacency SID*
> >
> > segment endpoint.
> >
> > Given the use of mapping IDs and mapping FIB, the proposal is
> comparable
> > more to SR-MPLS than SRv6. It is better to do a holistic analysis
> of any
> > proposal such as CRH that is introducing an MPLS label like mapping
> > construct into IPv6 architecture - doing so should be considered
> as a
> > significant change to IPv6.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ketan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper.....@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
> >
> > Sent: 25 May 2020 21:14
> >
> > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com
> <mailto:ket...@cisco.com>
> > <mailto:ket...@cisco.com <mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>>; Joel M.
> Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>
> > <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>>
> >
> > Cc: rtg-...@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
> <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org> <mailto:6...@ietf.org
> <mailto:6...@ietf.org>>>
> >
> > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
> Size of
> > CR in CRH
> >
> > Ketan,
> >
> > It would not be fair to say that these operators "wish to deploy a
> > Traffic Engineering solution using a subset of Segment Routing".
> >
> > It would be fair to say that these operators "wish to deploy IPv6
> > Traffic Engineering". Some of these operators don't care about
> SR. Some
> > are actively averse to SRv6. All they want is a Routing header.
> >
> >
Ron
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> <ketant=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org
<mailto:40cisco.....@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > <mailto:ketant <mailto:ketant>=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
> >
> > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 5:21 AM
> >
> > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net <mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>
> <mailto:rbon...@juniper.net <mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>>; Joel
> > M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>
> <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>>
> >
> > Cc: rtg-...@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
> <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org> <mailto:6...@ietf.org
> <mailto:6...@ietf.org>>>
> >
> > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
> Size of
> > CR in CRH
> >
> > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > Thanks for that clarification.
> >
> > I note that you are not anymore saying "Are not interested in SR"
> like
> > you had mentioned before the WG adoption call :
> >
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$
>
> >
>
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$>
> >
> > So, would it be fair to say that the operator that you are
> referring to
> > below, wishes to deploy a Traffic Engineering solution using a
> subset of
> > Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture)
that
> > only supports prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two
> > "forwarding methods" that are referred to in
> draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ketan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper.....@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
> >
> > Sent: 25 May 2020 09:03
> >
> > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com
> <mailto:ket...@cisco.com>
> > <mailto:ket...@cisco.com <mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>>; Joel M.
> Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>
> > <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>>
> >
> > Cc: rtg-...@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
> <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org> <mailto:6...@ietf.org
> <mailto:6...@ietf.org>>>
> >
> > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
> Size of
> > CR in CRH
> >
> > Ketan,
> >
> > Please consider an operator who:
> >
> > - Wants a way to steer IPv6 packets through a specified path that
> > includes many nodes (>8)
> >
> > - Does not want any of the following:
> >
> > - A new VPN encapsulation technique
> >
> > - A new service function chaining technique
> >
> > - Network programming
> >
> > - MPLS and uSID
> >
> > - To encoding instructions in IPv6 addresses.
> >
> > These operators want a compact routing header, nothing more.
> >
> >
>
Ron
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>>> On
> > Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:42 AM
> >
> > To: Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com
> <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com
> <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>>
> >
> > Cc: rtg-...@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
> <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org> <mailto:6...@ietf.org
> <mailto:6...@ietf.org>>>
> >
> > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
> Size of
> > CR in CRH
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > I am looking for explanation of the "other ways" that CRH can be
> used
> > (i.e. those outside the Spring architecture). I am trying to
> understand
> > from the authors what would be the applicability of that
> solution, it's
> > use-cases and it's requirements. That is what, I believe, will
> help us
> > evaluate the CRH proposal in the context of this working call.
> That will
> > help us answer these questions like the scope of the SID, 32-bit or
> > 16-bit or something else and what the CRH-FIB is going to turn
> out like.
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>
> /M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike
> /Silver Spring, MD
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
i...@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
