Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, Rishabh: I agree with Huaimo here. You introduced the state at the Replication Node, as that also stated in your document: 2.1. SR-MPLS data plane When the Active Segment is a Replication SID, the processing results in a POP operation and lookup of the associated Replication state…. 2.2. SRv6 data plane In SRv6 [RFC8986], the "Endpoint with replication" behavior (End.Replicate for short) replicates a packet and forwards the packet according to a Replication state…. For multicast services, I think there will be more Replication Nodes existing in the network, for each Replication Node, you must associate the related states to accomplish the multicast delivery. This is certainly controversial to the principles of segment routing. What you claimed in your responses(does not need any state in core nodes) is not the merits of your solution, it belong to the SR technology itself. I think your proposal can be used to achieve the multicast services delivery, but it should not be called segment routing based.  Even we do not introduce the concept of “Replication Segment”, we can accomplish the same results via the PCE/PCEP, to download the related states into the transit nodes.  Then, I want to know what’s necessary to define the “Replication Segment” and also this draft? Aijun Wang China Telecom On Dec 10, 2022, at 06:05, Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> wrote:  Huaimo, The Replication Segment as defined in this draft, with Replication Node at ingress of SR domain and downstream nodes at the egress of SR domain does not need any state in core nodes. -Rishabh On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 1:53 PM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@futurewei.com> wrote: Hi Everyone,     It seems that the core value of segment routing is stateless (in the core of a network). The document defines a new type of segment for Segment Routing [RFC8402], called Replication segment. Using Replication segment is not stateless. This is not consistent with the core value of segment routing. I oppose the progress of the document. Best Regards, Huaimo From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 10:10 AM To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment   Dear WG:   This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/   Please read the updated document if you haven’t already and send your comments to the SPRING WG list no later than December 12th 2022.   If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.   Lastly, if you are an author or contributor please respond to indicate whether you know of any undisclosed IPR related to this document.   Thanks!   Jim, Joel & Bruno     _______________________________________________ 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