Hi Igor, Thank you for the quick review. Please see inline (DR##)
From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Igor Malyushkin <gmalyush...@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 2:50 AM To: "Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)" <dhrao=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: "b...@ietf.org" <b...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] New draft "draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color" Accidently unicasted the previous message to Dhananjaya, replying to the group. Hello Dhananjaya, Can you please clarify some moments in Section 6.2? First, I don't see any sign of Section 5.1.9 (also referred to in Section 6.3.1.7) in the document. Looks like missed. DR ## Thanks; yes, it was a reference to Section 5.9. Missed updating during conversion. Will be fixed in next revision. I'm interested in the next scenario. Let's suppose that for a service instance (VPN or a global table) there are two ingress flows per single destination. This destination is color-marked and resolved by an intent-aware underlay. Also, there is a best-effort path as a fallback. Using per-flow steering that is based on 5-tuple IP flow is it possible to send ingress traffic from a source S1 via the intent-aware path, and ingress traffic from a source S2 via a fallback (best-effort) path at the same time? My reading of Section 6.2 shows me that it's not possible. But I strongly believe that there are cases when an intent/colored path for a distinct destination must be used only by the subset of members of service, and the same destination must be available for the rest members of the service via a best-effort path(s) only. I can show some business logic behind this if you will. DR## Sending one IP flow for a destination via an intent-aware path while sending another flow for the same destination via a best-effort path (or a different intent-aware path) is a valid use-case, which is intended to be covered. It was described more explicitly in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/ Section 1.2.11, but reduced in the merged doc. We can make it more explicit. In fact, this scenario is already supported by existing intent-aware solutions such as SR-TE : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22#section-8.6 Regards, -Dhananjaya Hope it helps, and thank you! сб, 16 июл. 2022 г. в 07:15, Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <dhrao=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>: Hello BESS folks, The co-authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/ have published a merged problem statement document : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color/ We request working group to review and provide your inputs. Regards, -Dhananjaya (for the co-authors) _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list b...@ietf.org<mailto:b...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
