Joel, Yes IMO your understanding is correct.
That does also mean that anyone who is making assertions that the subject document is introducing per flow "state" is just wrong or simply does not understand SR dogmas. Cheers, Robert. On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 12:42 AM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > Speaking personally, my understanding of the "stateless" aspect of SR does > not match what this email seems to describe. > > SR is path stateless. There is no state related to specific paths across > the network. Any SID may be used, if it has relevant meaning, in any path. > > Advertising routers have internal state about what they mean when the > advertise SIDs. > > Transit rotuers have state about where to forward packets based on the > current SID in the packet. > > Binding SIDs have stored state about what stack of labels replace the > binding SID at the advertising router. > > All these forms of state are considered by the community, as far as I can > tell, as acceptable and reasonable forms of state with SR. > > > Personally, it seems to me that replication SIDs have much the same kinds > of state, and therefore fit well in the SR architecture. > > Yours, > > Joel > > > On 12/9/2022 11:53 AM, Huaimo Chen 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> <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on > behalf of James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > *Sent:* Monday, November 28, 2022 10:10 AM > *To:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> <spring@ietf.org> > *Cc:* spring-cha...@ietf.org <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/ > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment%2F&data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C385b4881095c41b2c27008dad152b258%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638052450396258660%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Xc85avPl8dZMqGuCSXAA6f89OTvRfQfQ6MGa9NCQnBE%3D&reserved=0> > > > > 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 listspring@ietf.orghttps://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
