Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

From: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:43:18 +0000

Rajesh,

This has already been replied less than one week ago. Please see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak

Thanks,
Pablo.

From: spring <[email-masked]> on behalf of Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, 11 October 2019 at 03:47
To: SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>, Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>
Subject: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Wanted to know the use case where we only POP the SRH ?

4.16.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#section-4.16.1>.  PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH

   The SRH processing of the End, End.X and End.T behaviors are

   modified: after the instruction "S14.  Update IPv6 DA with Segment

   List[Segments Left]" is executed, the following instructions must be

   executed as well:

   S14.1.   If (updated SL == 0) {

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

Juniper Business Use Only

---

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 22:37:54 +0000

WANG had given below use case : But using existing PSP logic this will not work.
In below at PSP router updated SL will be 1 (since END.DT4 is still there) ,so SRH pop won't happen.

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:
"For example in SRv6-based L3VPN service scenario, The ingress PE within SRv6-enabled domain can utilize SR-TE policy to enable TE-path function when encapsulating and transiting L3VPN traffic, The Ingress PE push on customer packets with SID list representing SR-TE policy plus END.DT4 as last SRv6 SID in SRH; So I think, each flavor of PSP/USP/USD can be designed to perform in related SRv6 endpoint. Imaging the PSP, the penultimate Endpoint can perform PSP, e.g. copy the last SID (END.DT4) of SRH to destination field of IPv6 header and POP the SRH, then forwarding it toward egress PE identified by DA"

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:13 PM
To: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Rajesh,

This has already been replied less than one week ago. Please see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c__;!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7HGIr9o9$>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak__;!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7P8QaU_7$>

Thanks,
Pablo.

From: spring <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]<mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>
Date: Friday, 11 October 2019 at 03:47
To: SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

4.16.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*section-4.16.1__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7DAv5v98$>.  PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 03:55:58 +0000

The value of Segment Left field in SRH begin with 0, so [SL]=0 represent the last SID. in this case, when [SL] decrease 1, and the penultimate SRv6 node copy IPv6 SID corresponding to [SL]=0 to DA field of IP packet, when enable PSP flavor at same time, the penultimate SRv6 node will check the [SL] value, if it is 0, then pop SRH, these extra action is pseudocode of PSP. This logic has no problem.

--------------------------------------
Cheers !

WANG Weibin

From: spring <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Rajesh M
Sent: 2019年10月18日 6:38
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

WANG had given below use case : But using existing PSP logic this will not work.
In below at PSP router updated SL will be 1 (since END.DT4 is still there) ,so SRH pop won’t happen.

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:
“For example in SRv6-based L3VPN service scenario, The ingress PE within SRv6-enabled domain can utilize SR-TE policy to enable TE-path function when encapsulating and transiting L3VPN traffic, The Ingress PE push on customer packets with SID list representing SR-TE policy plus END.DT4 as last SRv6 SID in SRH; So I think, each flavor of PSP/USP/USD can be designed to perform in related SRv6 endpoint. Imaging the PSP, the penultimate Endpoint can perform PSP, e.g. copy the last SID (END.DT4) of SRH to destination field of IPv6 header and POP the SRH, then forwarding it toward egress PE identified by DA”

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:13 PM
To: Rajesh M <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Rajesh,

This has already been replied less than one week ago.. Please see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c__;!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7HGIr9o9$>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak__;!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7P8QaU_7$>

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:18:04 +0000

I was more focused towards END.DT4 SID where behavior you mentioned is possible only if we do below optimization in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02__;!8WoA6RjC81c!VLXDHwQhv3Ai4Cky1wjCRKLg4MMbWlArh2rC0Srmtc6uKxdGYoSjuGxkKh-cx1pT$>  section 3.

when the received route is colored with an extended color community 'C' and Next-Hop 'N', and the ingress PE has a valid SRv6 Policy (C, N) associated with SID list <S1,S2, S3>, then the effective SR Policy is <S1, S2, SRv6-Service-SID>.Here if you see
S3 and SRv6-Service-SID both belong to Egress so s3 has been removed.

For you my query is removing only SRH header on PHP router will give what kind of advantage ?

Thanks
Rajesh

Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 9:26 AM
To: Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

WANG Weibin

From: spring <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> On Behalf Of Rajesh M
Sent: 2019年10月18日 6:38
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:pcamaril@cisco..com>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:13 PM
To: Rajesh M <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Wogoc-HBxWprNFIMxDGoprcCPpEqeSUK6WmLst9CNbljhrh-Ur4yOghFj3kDJQnV$>

Rajesh,

Thanks,
Pablo.

Subject: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Wogoc-HBxWprNFIMxDGoprcCPpEqeSUK6WmLst9CNbljhrh-Ur4yOghFj3kDJQnV$>

4.16.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*section-4.16.1__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7DAv5v98$>..  PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 00:55:34 +0000

Hi Rajesh:
The answer to your question, I think, had better be provided by Authors of NET-PGM, You can also refer to Ron’s email previously one or two days before who give some guess, I think it make sense, in addition , also including processing-load mitigation in Last hop (egress PE);
Could you Pls explain the benefit of similar behavior in PHP of MPLS world.  I think it may be same.

WANG Weibin

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
Sent: 2019年10月18日 20:18
To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]>; Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Thanks
Rajesh

Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> On Behalf Of Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 9:26 AM
To: Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]<mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

WANG Weibin

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Rajesh,

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 02:28:44 +0000

MPLS world PSP will help in avoiding one more lookup at egress for VPN cases.

I feel both PSP and USP are not useful in case of SRV6.

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 6:26 AM
To: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>; Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Hi Rajesh:

WANG Weibin

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: 2019年10月18日 20:18
To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]<mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Thanks
Rajesh

Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Xvm3hzUGljwi9nBE2mtVYPtMItbLLS1EMD8VDmp4d3K0OZliIbHVQDKF1Nw-lbbm$>

WANG Weibin

From: spring <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> On Behalf Of Rajesh M
Sent: 2019年10月18日 6:38
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Xvm3hzUGljwi9nBE2mtVYPtMItbLLS1EMD8VDmp4d3K0OZliIbHVQDKF1Nw-lbbm$>

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Rajesh,

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:04:26 +0000

if we use T.Insert Mode for TI-LFA then PSP and USP Flavours are useful.

T.insert mode is  deprecated ? if Yes then PSP and USP Flavours also must be deprecated as per me.

Thanks

Rajesh

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 7:59 AM
To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]>; Rajesh M <[email-masked]>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 6:26 AM
To: Rajesh M <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]<mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Hi Rajesh:

WANG Weibin

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: 2019年10月18日 20:18
To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]<mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Tj1RzlZX05hQXJCRb6NfbDmr4p543xmCTIQUDjQsIjiWMC6mn7vFFP39Imon9Has$>

Thanks
Rajesh

WANG Weibin

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Rajesh,

This has already been replied less than one week ago... Please see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c__;!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7HGIr9o9$>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak__;!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7P8QaU_7$>

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:22:03 +0000

Hi Rajesh,

T.insert is definitely not deprecated. Please check https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zRwYRZrKEwzMor2cXpYiag--_y0 - I would suggest you go through the archives to get the history/context.

In fact, it is already deployed - check https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-02

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
Sent: 19 October 2019 09:34
To: Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>; Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email-masked]>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Thanks

Rajesh

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]<mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 7:59 AM
To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Rajesh M <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Hi Rajesh:

WANG Weibin

Thanks
Rajesh

WANG Weibin

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Rajesh,

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:33:44 +0000

Then my suggestion is  move PSP and USP Flavours to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insert , thanks.

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 9:52 AM
To: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>; Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>; Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Hi Rajesh,

T.insert is definitely not deprecated. Please check https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zRwYRZrKEwzMor2cXpYiag--_y0<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zRwYRZrKEwzMor2cXpYiag--_y0__;!8WoA6RjC81c!SDnSO1UkM_GXHuCakygVPB3Z6_a_KuxAxRQIlnu86NF7h-n7dsCfdplAfPKxoaW7$> - I would suggest you go through the archives to get the history/context.

In fact, it is already deployed - check https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-02<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-02__;!8WoA6RjC81c!SDnSO1UkM_GXHuCakygVPB3Z6_a_KuxAxRQIlnu86NF7h-n7dsCfdplAfBrSP6fJ$>

Thanks,
Ketan

To: Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]<mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Thanks

Rajesh

Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!SDnSO1UkM_GXHuCakygVPB3Z6_a_KuxAxRQIlnu86NF7h-n7dsCfdplAfMDWG76b$>

Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!SDnSO1UkM_GXHuCakygVPB3Z6_a_KuxAxRQIlnu86NF7h-n7dsCfdplAfMDWG76b$>

Hi Rajesh:

WANG Weibin

Thanks
Rajesh

WANG Weibin

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Rajesh,

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 04:40:43 +0000

Again, request to catch up on the archives please.

From: Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
Sent: 19 October 2019 10:04
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email-masked]>; Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>; Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 9:52 AM
To: Rajesh M <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]<mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Hi Rajesh,

Thanks,
Ketan

Thanks

Rajesh

Hi Rajesh:

WANG Weibin

Thanks
Rajesh

WANG Weibin

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Rajesh,

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:29:59 +0000

The END (END.X /END.T) with PSP (or USP, even more complicated SID instruction such as END with [PSP,USP & USD]) advertised by Nodes are only building block for programming SRv6 based Path in Ingress edge SR router, whether it is used along the path is up to operator, in some scenario there are little benefit to enable PSP, so it is so-called flavor, but, I think It may be useful in some scenario which May occur in future.
If you Compare END.B6.Encaps with END.B6.Encaps.RED, you will also get some conclusion.

Cheers!

WANG Weibin

Sent: 2019年10月19日 10:29

Hi Rajesh:

WANG Weibin

Thanks
Rajesh

WANG Weibin

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Rajesh,

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 11:06:47 -0400

The fact that T.insert is deployed does not seem particularly relevant  
to the quesiton of whether the working groups (6man and SPRING) will  
approve the draft asking for permission to violate RFC 8200.

I will grant that we have also not decided to deprecate that behavior.  
The groups are still debating.  The authors have appropriately removed  
all of the insert functionality from the base network programming draft.  
  If USP and PSP are coupled to that, then they belong in the draft on  
the insertion behaviors.

Pablo has argued that there is no dependence.  Technically, I have to  
grant it is true.  It still seems that the primary use cases are ones  
which are coupled to the insertion behaviors.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/19/2019 12:22 AM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> Hi Rajesh,
> 
> T.insert is definitely not deprecated. Please check 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zRwYRZrKEwzMor2cXpYiag--_y0 
> - I would suggest you go through the archives to get the history/context.
> 
> In fact, it is already deployed – check 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-02
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ketan
> 
> *From:*Rajesh M <[email-masked]>
> *Sent:* 19 October 2019 09:34
> *To:* Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked]>; Wang, Weibin (NSB 
> - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked]>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) 
> <[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>; Peter Psenak 
> (ppsenak) <[email-masked]>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* Srihari Sangli <[email-masked]>; Shraddha Hegde 
> <[email-masked]>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* RE: [spring] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24
> 
> *From:*Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked] 
> <mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 19, 2019 7:59 AM
> *To:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>; Rajesh M <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Cc:* Srihari Sangli <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; 
> Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ron 
> Bonica <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Subject:* RE: [spring] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24
> 
> I feel both PSP and USP are not useful in case of SRV6..
> 
> *From:*Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 19, 2019 6:26 AM
> *To:* Rajesh M <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; 
> Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked] 
> <mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo 
> (pcamaril) <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG 
> List <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Cc:* Srihari Sangli <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; 
> Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Subject:* RE: [spring] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24
> 
> Hi Rajesh:
> 
> The answer to your question, I think, had better be provided by Authors 
> of NET-PGM, You can also refer to Ron’s email previously one or two days 
> before who give some guess, I think it make sense, in addition , also 
> including processing-load mitigation in Last hop (egress PE);
> 
> /Cheers !/
> **
> *WANG Weibin *
> *From:*Rajesh M <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Sent:* 2019年10月18日20:18
> *To:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>; Rajesh M 
> <mrajesh=[email-masked] 
> <mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo 
> (pcamaril) <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG 
> List <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Cc:* Srihari Sangli <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; 
> Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Subject:* RE: [spring] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Tj1RzlZX05hQXJCRb6NfbDmr4p543xmCTIQUDjQsIjiWMC6mn7vFFP39Imon9Has$>
> 
> I was more focused towards END.DT4 SID where behavior you mentioned is 
> possible only if we do below optimization in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02__;!8WoA6RjC81c!VLXDHwQhv3Ai4Cky1wjCRKLg4MMbWlArh2rC0Srmtc6uKxdGYoSjuGxkKh-cx1pT$> 
> section 3.
> 
> when the received route is colored with an extended color community 'C' 
> and Next-Hop 'N', and the ingress PE has a valid SRv6 Policy (C, N) 
> associated with SID list <S1,S2, S3>, then the effective SR Policy is 
> <S1, S2, SRv6-Service-SID>.Here if you see
> 
> *S3 and SRv6-Service-SID both belong to Egress so s3 has been removed.*
> 
> **
> 
> **
> 
> *For you my query is removing only SRH header on PHP router will give 
> what kind of advantage ?*
> 
> **
> 
> *Thanks*
> 
> *Rajesh*
> 
> *From:*spring <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> 
> *On Behalf Of *Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2019 9:26 AM
> *To:* Rajesh M <mrajesh=[email-masked] 
> <mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>; Pablo Camarillo 
> (pcamaril) <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG 
> List <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Cc:* Srihari Sangli <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; 
> Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Xvm3hzUGljwi9nBE2mtVYPtMItbLLS1EMD8VDmp4d3K0OZliIbHVQDKF1Nw-lbbm$>
> 
> The value of Segment Left field in SRH begin with 0, so [SL]=0 represent 
> the last SID. in this case, when [SL] decrease 1, and the penultimate 
> SRv6 node copy IPv6 SID corresponding to [SL]=0 to DA field of IP 
> packet, when enable PSP flavor at same time, the penultimate SRv6 node 
> will check the [SL] value, if it is 0, then pop SRH, these extra action 
> is pseudocode of PSP. This logic has no problem.
> 
> /Cheers !/
> **
> *WANG Weibin *
> *From:*spring <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> 
> *On Behalf Of *Rajesh M
> *Sent:* 2019年10月18日6:38
> *To:* Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>; SPRING WG List <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Cc:* Srihari Sangli <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; 
> Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Xvm3hzUGljwi9nBE2mtVYPtMItbLLS1EMD8VDmp4d3K0OZliIbHVQDKF1Nw-lbbm$>
> 
> “For example in SRv6-based L3VPN service scenario, The ingress PE within 
> SRv6-enabled domain can utilize SR-TE policy to enable TE-path function 
> when encapsulating and transiting L3VPN traffic, The Ingress PE push on 
> customer packets with SID list representing SR-TE policy plus END.DT4 as 
> last SRv6 SID in SRH; So I think, each flavor of PSP/USP/USD can be 
> designed to perform in related SRv6 endpoint. Imaging the PSP, the 
> penultimate Endpoint can perform PSP, e.g. copy the last SID (END.DT4) 
> of SRH to destination field of IPv6 header and POP the SRH, then 
> forwarding it toward egress PE identified by DA”
> 
> *From:*Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:pcamaril@cisco...com>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:13 PM
> *To:* Rajesh M <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; 
> SPRING WG List <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Cc:* Srihari Sangli <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>; 
> Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Wogoc-HBxWprNFIMxDGoprcCPpEqeSUK6WmLst9CNbljhrh-Ur4yOghFj3kDJQnV$>
> 
> Rajesh,
> 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c__;!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7HGIr9o9$>
> 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak__;!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7P8QaU_7$>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pablo.
> 
> *From: *spring <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of Rajesh M 
> <mrajesh=[email-masked] 
> <mailto:mrajesh=[email-masked]>>
> *Date: *Friday, 11 October 2019 at 03:47
> *To: *SPRING WG List <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Cc: *Srihari Sangli <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>, 
> Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> *Subject: *[spring] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!Wogoc-HBxWprNFIMxDGoprcCPpEqeSUK6WmLst9CNbljhrh-Ur4yOghFj3kDJQnV$>
> 
>         4.16.1
>         <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*section-4.16.1__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!W8zXtokq31cYlPoLJ6Ip-BlyXApb7JIhuJzRXW3khd_OAByxCvaxs9Jw7DAv5v98$>..
>         PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>

---

From: li zhenqiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 02:00:17 +0000

+1.

Obviously, the flavors mainly cooperate with SRH Insertion in some specific use cases although the authors are reluctant to admit this.

We all want the base specification of SRv6,  srv6-network-programming, to be compact and unambiguous. Thus it may be moved forward quickly to be a standard RFC. The controversial points should be removed from the base specification. The advanced or enhanced features can be specified in seperate docs one bye one to update the base specification.

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
________________________________
[email-masked]

From: Joel M. Halpern<mailto:[email-masked]>
Date: 2019-10-19 23:06
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)<mailto:[email-masked]>; SPRING WG List<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24
The fact that T.insert is deployed does not seem particularly relevant
to the quesiton of whether the working groups (6man and SPRING) will
approve the draft asking for permission to violate RFC 8200.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:37:45 +0000

Ketan,

Previously in this thread, we have agreed on the following:

  *   PSP and USP operate upon SRH with SL equal to zero
  *   SRH with SL equal to zero is a functional NOOP

Because SRH with SL equal to zero is a functional  NOOP, there is limited value is  special operations that removes it.

Currently, there is an unresolved issue regarding whether a transit node can insert or remove extension headers in flight. As a result of that argument, END.B6.INSERT and T.INSERT have been moved to a separate document. You might want to move PSP and USP to that same document for the following reasons:

  *   Moving PSP and USP will allow the network programming draft to progress before the larger issue of extension header insertion and removal is resolved
  *   Moving PSP and USP will prevent the network programming draft from being delayed over a functional NOOP.

                                                                            Ron

Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 12:22 AM

Hi Rajesh,

T.insert is definitely not deprecated. Please check https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zRwYRZrKEwzMor2cXpYiag--_y0<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zRwYRZrKEwzMor2cXpYiag--_y0__;!8WoA6RjC81c!WtxAEiukUUeEilxoIdc4jE3cAwZIAZ2aUNEwerDNWiOwERTh5iYkF1fepfb-GGcH$> - I would suggest you go through the archives to get the history/context.

In fact, it is already deployed - check https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-02<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-02__;!8WoA6RjC81c!WtxAEiukUUeEilxoIdc4jE3cAwZIAZ2aUNEwerDNWiOwERTh5iYkF1fepXkLxyf0$>

Thanks,
Ketan

Thanks

Rajesh

Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!WtxAEiukUUeEilxoIdc4jE3cAwZIAZ2aUNEwerDNWiOwERTh5iYkF1fepQnzb6U7$>

Subject: RE: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04*page-24__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!WtxAEiukUUeEilxoIdc4jE3cAwZIAZ2aUNEwerDNWiOwERTh5iYkF1fepQnzb6U7$>

Hi Rajesh:

WANG Weibin

Thanks
Rajesh

WANG Weibin

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }

WANG use case:

Rajesh,

Thanks,
Pablo.

   executed as well:

   S14.2.      Pop the SRH

   S14.3.   }