+1 on Jorge and Robert. I don’t think we should mandate. Gaurav
> On Jul 19, 2021, at 6:52 AM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > > I agree with Jorge.. > > In fact I find the tone of the comment to be very inappropriate: > > > In case of best effort/flex algo we must mandate user to set corresponding > > locator as BGP nexthop for srv6 routes. > > No we MUST not mandate anything to the user. > > We MUST provide flexibility to address all deployment cases user may have. > > Best, > R. > > > >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 3:47 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) >> <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote: >> Hi Rajesh, >> >> >> >> The draft is written so that the next-hop address MAY be covered by the >> locator, but there are cases in which the next-hop address is not part of >> the locator prefix, and there are implementations already allowing that, so >> I don’t agree the document should mandate what you are suggesting. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jorge >> >> >> >> From: Rajesh M <mraj...@juniper.net> >> Date: Monday, July 19, 2021 at 3:24 PM >> To: Rajesh M <mrajesh=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ketan Talaulikar >> (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>, gdawra.i...@gmail.com <gdawra.i...@gmail.com>, >> Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>, rob...@raszuk.net >> <rob...@raszuk.net>, bruno.decra...@orange.com <bruno.decra...@orange.com>, >> Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> >> Cc: spr...@ietf.org <spr...@ietf.org>, b...@ans.net <b...@ans.net>, Shraddha >> Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, Srihari Sangli >> <ssan...@juniper.net> >> Subject: RE: SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services >> (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07) >> >> Hi Authors, >> >> >> >> Please respond. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Rajesh >> >> >> >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rajesh M >> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:36 PM >> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; >> Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>; rob...@raszuk.net; >> bruno.decra...@orange.com; jorge.raba...@nokia.com >> Cc: spr...@ietf.org; b...@ans.net; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; >> bess@ietf.org >> Subject: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services >> (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07) >> >> >> >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> As per this draft, this is how resolution must work. >> >> >> >> 1)For Non Intent service Route: >> >> if BGP next hop is not reachable return. >> >> Resolve SRv6 Service SID for forwarding. >> >> >> >> 2)For Intent service Route (IGP Flex-Algo first then BGP CAR then SR Policy): >> >> BGP next hop is not reachable return. >> >> Resolve SRv6 Service SID for forwarding(To find IGP flex algo).if >> successfully resolves then return. >> >> Resolve BGP next hop for forwarding (in case above is not success). >> >> >> >> >> >> Using Service SID (overlay),for resolution is definitely not recommended. >> >> >> >> Instead in case of srv6, we always resolve on BGP nexthop. This will be in >> line with BGP legacy. >> >> In case of best effort/flex algo we must mandate user to set corresponding >> locator as BGP nexthop for srv6 routes. >> >> I think this is a reasonable mandate. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Rajesh >> >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
