Jie,
Lots of thanks for your email.

First, I would like to apologize for not responding to your emails earlier.

I think that there is a certain mismatch of terminology that have resulted in 
misunderstanding.

In my (and, AFAIK, relatively common) terminology frames received from a Layer 
2 logical interface are disposed based solely in their L2 header. (In the case 
of Ethernet this would include Destination and Source MAC addresses and zero, 
one or two VLAN tags - but not the "true" Ethertype that follows these tags. 
Other L2 media uses similar arrangements). I.e., the node that receives 
Ethernet frames from what it considers a L2 interface cannot differentiate 
between, say, IPv4, ARP, IPv6 and MPLS.

It is the ability to differentiate between different protocols based on the 
"true" Ethertype and, say, look up the Destination IPv6 address in the 
appropriate FIB (which is required for SRv6) that makes an interface a L3 one 
from my POV.

Regarding your concern about L3 interfaces involving adjacencies, I also think 
this is unfounded. It is quite easy to make an IGP adjacency unusable for 
normal IP forwarding by assigning maximum cost to the corresponding link -but 
using Adj-SIDs allocated and advertised for such a link in SR-TE policies that 
are set up by the appropriate controller.

Hopefully these notes will be useful


Regards,
Sasha



Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 7:59:30 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; 
draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programm...@ietf.org 
<draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programm...@ietf.org>
Cc: spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: My question at the mike about 
draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming

Hi Sasha,

Thanks for your question at the mic. Please see some replies inline:

________________________________________
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein=40rbbn....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 5:27
To: draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programm...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] My question at the mike about 
draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming

Hi all,
Just repeating the question about the 
draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming-08<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming-08>>
 I’ve asked at he mike at the SPRING WG session today.


* Suppose that there is an underlay link between a pair of IP nodes that is not 
“visible in he L3 topology”. To me this means that there no P-capable (logical) 
interfaces associated with the endpoints of this underlay link

[Jie] The interface of the underlay link is not L3-capable, while it still can 
have some packet processing capability. You may consider it as a layer-2 
logical interface.


* Suppose further that one of these nodes (the upstream one) allocates and 
advertises an SID with End.XU behavior for this underlay link

* The upstream node receives an IPv6 packets with the tops SRv6 SID on it being 
the End.XU. It strips this SID (this the common behavior of all End-like SIDs) 
and send the resulting IPv6 packet across the link to the downstream node/\.
Now the question: How should the downstream node process the received packet if 
its local endpoint of the undelay link s not associated with an IP-capable 
logical interface?

[Jie] Similar to what I said above, the receiving interface is not L3-capable, 
while it can receive and process the packet properly in layer-2, the inner L3 
packet header can be processed by the node.


If the endpoints of the underlay ink are associated with L3 interfaces in both 
nodes, the link becomes visible in L3 topology, and a regular End.X SID can be 
allocated and advertised for it.

[Jie] As described in the draft, making it an L3 adjacency between the two 
endpoints is both challenging and unnecessary. And operator does not want this 
link to be visible in L3 topology. Thus regular End.X SID does not meet the 
requirement here.


Hope this help to answer your question.

Best regards,
Jie


Hopefully this clarifies my question.

Regards,
Sasha




Disclaimer

This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon 
Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary 
for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or 
distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to