Hi all,
About this point:
1) In Section 3.2.1, the draft transposes bits into the MPLS Label field. This
is surprising because MPLS appears nowhere in the forwarding plane. Maybe we
shouldn't advertise an MPLS label?
I have seen in some BESS documents that this field is called “Service Label”, not “MPLS label”.
Because MPLS does not exist in VxLAN too, but the same label is used.
Hence, 1) is easy to resolve. It is just a terminology correction that makes sense in principle for all BESS documents.
Eduard
From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 4:37 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; bess@xxxxxxxx; int-dir@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bess] [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:20 AM Ron Bonica via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Ron Bonica
Review result: Not Ready
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services.txt.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.
Major issues:
1) In Section 3.2.1, the draft transposes bits into the MPLS Label field. This
is surprising because MPLS appears nowhere in the forwarding plane. Maybe we
shouldn't advertise an MPLS label?
2) In Section 3.2.1 the draft says:
BGP speakers that do not support this specification may misinterpret,
on the reception of an SRv6-based BGP service route update, the part
of the SRv6 SID encoded in MPLS label field(s) as MPLS label values
for MPLS-based services. Implementations supporting this
specification SHOULD provide a mechanism to control the advertisement
of SRv6-based BGP service routes on a per-neighbor and per-service
basis. The details of deployment designs and implementation options
are outside the scope of this document.
Much thanks to Ron for this OpsDir review -- I'd completely missed the above points, and they are important to address.
s/BGP speakers that do not support this specification/Legacy BGP implementations
It seems that this isn't backwards compatible unless either:
- the SHOULD becomes a MUST
- the mechanism is described in this document
3) I concur with Warren Kumari's DISCUSS
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
--
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
-- E. W. Dijkstra
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
