Hi Tom,
Thanks for reading the draft and raise discussions.
In the proposal the SRv6 domain is the overlay network, belonging to one
administrative domain -- the overlay network operator(say ONO).
For your concern about use of SIDs "across" the public Internet. Let me try to
explain using following figure (hope it works):
CPE1 CPE2 CPE3
+ + + +
| +--------+ | | +----------+ |
+---[1] TN1 [1]---+ +---+ Internet |---+
+--------+ +----------+
In the perspective of the ONO, it has the following SIDs:
SID1/2/3: allocated on CPE1/CPE2/CPE3 by the ONO.
SID4/5: allocated by TN operator but serves for the ONO (Tenant-1 of TN, marked
[1] in the figure).
The ONO can use these SIDs, and I would think they are all "in the overlay
network", and are running "Over the Internet".
You mentioned in the last sentence "the use of SIDs over the public Internet".
That is what I am modeling above.
Thanks
Jingrong
-----Original Message-----
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Hill
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 10:43 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Network Programming Interface for Provisioning of
Underlay Services to Overlay Networks Using SRv6
(draft-xie-spring-srv6-npi-for-overlay)
Hi Jinrong,
On 08/03/2022 01:58, Xiejingrong (Jingrong) wrote:
> I just posted a draft that specifies a framework and some more detail
> of the idea for provisioning of underlay services
> (Slice/SR-policy/Mcast/etc) to overlay networks(SD-WAN/CDN/etc), using SRv6.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xie-spring-srv6-npi-for-ov
> erlay
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xie-spring-srv6-npi-for-o
> verlay>
>
> Please comment and send any feedback.
>
> I would like to discuss this document over e-mail/mail-list.
I'm concerned that this draft is explicitly violating the concept of
SRv6 as a protocol that operates within a Limited Domain.
As per Section 3.2 of this draft, "... the network operator of AN, TN and
Internet can be different from each other."
Further, "In some scenarios, the AN can be an Internet exchange provider
(IXP) independent of ISP and NSP. In some other scenarios, the AN can be an ISP
that running Internet backbone as well."
This would read to me that the proposal is explicitly intended to be
inter-domain, and not at all limited to any one administrative domain.
Additionally, I cannot determine if the draft implicitly requires the use of
SIDs across the public Internet?
Could I ask for some clarification on the scope of the draft, with respect to
Limited Domains, and also the use of SIDs over the public Internet?
Kind regards,
--
Tom
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
