Jim, The text you refer to in Section 2.1 and .2.2 has changed after addressing comments since the last revision, but we will try to incorporate the suggested change.
Thanks, -Rishabh On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:06 AM James Guichard < james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Hi Rishabh & authors, > > To close out this discussion, in sections 2.1 and 2.2 we have: > > There MAY be SIDs after the Replication SID in the segment list of a > packet. These SIDs are used to provide additional context for processing a > packet locally at the node where the Replication SID is the Active Segment. > The processing of SIDs following the Replication SID MUST NOT forward the > SR-MPLS packet to another node. > > > > The chairs believe it would be helpful to add a sentence to clarity the > scope and offer the following text "Coordination regarding the absence or > presence and value of context information for replication leaves is outside > the scope of this document.". > > > > Thanks! > > > > Jim, Joel & Bruno > > > > > > *From:* Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:37 AM > *To:* James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > *Cc:* Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>; > bruno.decra...@orange.com; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment > > > > James, > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 8:05 AM James Guichard < > james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > > Hi Jingrong & document authors, > > > > I would like for now to leave aside the issue of whether or not > application/VPN specifics should be outside the scope of this SPRING > document (I will however be revisiting this point in subsequent emails) and > focus on bringing closure to the technical comments detailed in > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/_1sSZCfCZWlHwXvYpfOtDZZ9M3g/ > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fspring%2F_1sSZCfCZWlHwXvYpfOtDZZ9M3g%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Cdb56daac0d014f3482a208db0fdfde76%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638121226437340003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xMx%2BHL31Nq%2FdqZZOXZf9ZEkPD5dptGq7Tsdp7mwieiU%3D&reserved=0> > . > > > > As I read through your comments Jingrong I think I can summarize your > objection to be that you believe the proposal breaks the SRv6 architecture > as the forwarding relies upon local state rather than state carried within > the SRH. Do I have that right? If this is the case then you need to be > specific in terms of which text/sentences in the document are in conflict > with which text/sentences of existing RFCs. As written I think Rishabh’s > forwarding example is accurate as he describes a lookup on the Replication > SID and the action is to either update the outer IPv6 address with the > downstream nodes address, or re-encapsulate the packet with a new IPv6 > header and SRH. I might draw your attention to > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8754.html#name-fib-entry-is-a-locally-inst > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc8754.html%23name-fib-entry-is-a-locally-inst&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Cdb56daac0d014f3482a208db0fdfde76%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638121226437340003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=q56RV5lZ8B6B%2F43YzGfa1LyhHu3l1JZbK9M%2Byx3hDvk%3D&reserved=0> > which talks about the definition of future SIDs and their behaviors. > > > > Further your comments appear to me to suggest that the VPN identification > encapsulated at PE1 acts like a normal VPN SID in the sense that forwarding > is based upon that IPv6 address. I don’t think that is the intent here; I > think the SID is used as an identifier for the VPN itself so that the > downstream nodes are given the correct VPN forwarding context i.e. they are > not supposed to use that SID to forward the packets back to PE1. Perhaps > the authors could clarify this point further? > > > > Hi Rishabh, it would be helpful if you could review the comments in > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/_1sSZCfCZWlHwXvYpfOtDZZ9M3g/ > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fspring%2F_1sSZCfCZWlHwXvYpfOtDZZ9M3g%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Cdb56daac0d014f3482a208db0fdfde76%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638121226437340003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xMx%2BHL31Nq%2FdqZZOXZf9ZEkPD5dptGq7Tsdp7mwieiU%3D&reserved=0> > again > and perhaps provide more clarity on the expected behavior as there seems to > be a difference in understanding of the actual operation. > > > > [RP] Exactly, the only purpose of VPN SID is to provide a VPN context at > Leaf/Bud nodes to forward the inner packet (encapsulated at ingress PE). I > have removed most of the text related to VPN (in yet unpublished next > revision) based on Bruno's earlier, but this has been explained earlier in > the thread. > > > > -Rishabh > > > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
