Hi Jingrong I reads the draft and was trying to understand the problem statement as well as the solution.
So I believe the problem statement is how to interconnect desperate sites over the internet using a managed IPSEC VPN or SDWAN solution or managed MPLS and complexity of provisioning CE attachment. The solution is an automated solution using SRv6 over the internet using BSID. This involves running SRv6 over the internet, however SRv6 is limited to closed domains. It appears an E2E pseudowire is used in provisioning the service. Have you though of using NG L2 VPN EVPN all or single active multi home over SRv6. Does all the provisioning use a PCE / SDN controller? Thanks Gyan On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 9:59 AM Andrew Alston - IETF <andrew-ietf= 40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi Jingrong, > > > > I’m struggling to entirely understand this. I think the question for me > is – if you are sending packets with SID’s over the open internet – are you > encapsulating those packets and is this encapsulation cryptographically > protected – I.E the SID’s are not visible outside of the encapsulation, to > preserve the limited domain. > > > > Limited domains are typically extended via tunnel mechanisms, very often > with cryptographic protection, hence the question > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From:* spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Xiejingrong > (Jingrong) > *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2022 9:40 AM > *To:* Tom Hill <t...@ninjabadger.net>; 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 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 <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 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
