Hi Jeff, Do you mind if I take the microphone on this one?
The expired draft-homma (ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-homma-sfc-forwarding-methods-analysis-05#page-23 ) on SFC forwarding methods detailed pretty well the various options for forwarding in the context of service chaining and in particular the value for SPs into the use of stacked headers but also potential caveats or required enhancements at the time of writing. Following on that thought, I think it becomes essential that SPRING addresses these caveats/enhancements. And contrary to Alvaro’s comment in his review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls (ref: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/97KtDebyroHfuNvllpNVb0s66H8/?qid=75cfe3b3b0f6d44817785cc576610ac3 ). I believe it also becomes apparent that answering SFC is “vital”. As it was part of the SR architecture drafts from the beginning (ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00#page-23 ). Even more reason to address this in SPRING. So, going back to your question, for us operators, I think it is essential that required forwarding behaviors, such as proxy mechanisms leveraging SR, get standardized so we can get interoperability and predictability between implementations. Be it in software or hardware. For an SP, the notion of “service-chains” is currently pretty hard to deploy and troubleshoot even more so in a multi-vendor fashion, it would be even harder if behaviors like proxies, behave differently. Hope it makes sense Thanks, ---------- Daniel Bernier ________________________________________ From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 4:34 PM To: Francois Clad (fclad); spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00.txt Hi Francois, The draft has been published as the Standards Track document. What is it you have been trying to standardize? Thanks! Cheers, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Francois Clad (fclad)" <fc...@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 07:46 To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00.txt Hello, We have just submitted draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00. Any feedback is welcome. Regards, Francois On 06/10/2017, 21:32, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Francois Clad and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining Revision: 00 Title: Segment Routing for Service Chaining Document date: 2017-10-06 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 24 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00 Abstract: This document defines data plane functionality required to implement service segments and achieve service chaining with MPLS and IPv6, as described in the Segment Routing architecture. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
