We have published revision 12 of the draft. Main changes include: - Pseudo-code for SRv6 End.Replicate - Description and example of ping to a Replication SID - Changes to text to address comments from Bruno, Jim and Joel
Please review. Thanks, -Rishabh On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 4:06 PM Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
