[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
SPRING                                                         R. Bonica
Internet-Draft                                                   Juniper
Intended status: Informational                                  W. Cheng
Expires: August 23, 2021                                    China Mobile
                                                                D. Dukes
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                           W. Henderickx
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                   C. Li
                                                                  Huawei
                                                               P. Shaofu
                                                                     ZTE
                                                                  C. Xie
                                                           China Telecom
                                                       February 19, 2021


                   Compressed SRv6 SID List Analysis
            draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-00

Abstract

   Several mechanisms have been proposed to compress the SRv6 SID list.
   This document analyzes each mechanism with regard to the requirements
   stated in the companion requirements document.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  SRv6 Compression Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Encapsulation Header Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Forwarding Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  Headers Parsed (PRS)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.2.  Lookups Performed (LKU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  State Efficiency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  SRv6 Specific Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  SRv6 Based  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  SRv6 Functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.2.  Heterogeneous SID Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.3.  SID List Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.4.  SID Summarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Operational Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.3.1.  Lossless Compression  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  Scalability Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Protocol Design Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  SRv6 Base Coexistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Security Mechanismns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  SR Domain Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The following mechanisms are proposed to compress the SRv6 SID list:

   o  CSID - [I-D.filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc] - Describes
      two new SRv6 SIDs, a combination of SIDs from
      [I-D.filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid] and
      [I-D.cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr]
   o  CRH - [I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr] - Requires two new routing
      header types and a label mapping technique.



Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


   o  VSID - [I-D.decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid] - Defines a set of SID
      behaviors to access smaller SIDs within the SR header.
   o  UID - [I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr] - Extends the SRH to carry
      MPLS labels or IPv4 addresses.

   This document analyzes each mechanism against the requirements stated
   in [I-D.srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement].  Each section of
   this document corresponds to a similarly named section in
   [I-D.srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement].  Each section
   reiterates corresponding requirements and analyzes each proposal
   against the those requirements.

2.  SRv6 Compression Requirements

   An SR domain consisting of 3 sub-domains is shown to illustrate the
   scenarios associated with encapsulation header size, forwarding
   efficiency and state efficiency.

        + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +
        *                                                     *
        * - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - *
        *                 |                 |                 *
        *   [M1_0]      [B5]  [C_0]       [B7]  [M2_0]        *
[H1]--[E3]                |                 |                [E4]---[H2]
        *        [M1_i] [B6]        [C_j] [B8]       [M2_k]   *
        *                 |                 |                 *
        *     Metro 1     |      Core       |     Metro 2     *
        *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*
        *                                                     *
        *                      SR domain                      *
        + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +

                        Figure 1: Sample SR Domain

   o  H1 and H2 are hosts outside the SR domain
   o  E3 and E4 are SR domain edge routers
   o  Metro 1, Core and Metro 2 are sub-domains with independent IGP
      instances
   o  B5 and B6 are border routers between the Metro 1 and Core
   o  B7 and B8 are border routers between the Metro 2 and Core
   o  M1_1..M1_i are routers in Metro 1
   o  C_1..C_j are routers in Core
   o  M2_1..M2_k are routers in Metro 2








Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


2.1.  Encapsulation Header Size

   The compression proposal MUST reduce the size of the SRv6
   encapsulation header.

   Encapsulation header size is evaluated against multiple reference
   scenarios.

2.2.  Forwarding Efficiency

   The compression proposal SHOULD minimize the number of required
   hardware resources accessed to process a segment.

2.2.1.  Headers Parsed (PRS)

   This section records and summarizes differences in header parsing for
   different SID types.

   o  Segment lists may contain transport, adjacency, service, binding
      or VPN segments.

                  +--------+------+-----+------+-------+
                  | 16-bit | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
                  +--------+------+-----+------+-------+
                  |        |      |     |      |       |
                  |        |      |     |      |       |
                  +--------+------+-----+------+-------+

                   Table 1: Headers Parsed, 16-bit SIDs

                  +--------+------+-----+------+-------+
                  | 32-bit | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
                  +--------+------+-----+------+-------+
                  |        |      |     |      |       |
                  |        |      |     |      |       |
                  +--------+------+-----+------+-------+

                   Table 2: Headers Parsed, 32-bit SIDs

   Conclusion:

2.2.2.  Lookups Performed (LKU)

   Some proposals require a different number of lookups per packet,
   depending on the SID type and segment list.

   A strict TE path is considered with a 1D(1..15T).V segment list,
   where each transport segment is an adjacency segment.



Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


            +---------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
            | 16-bit and 32-bit   | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
            +---------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
            | D.LKU(1D(1..15T).V) |      |     |      |       |
            +---------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

                     Table 3: Lookups, Strict TE Paths

   Conclusion:

   A loose TE path consists of a combination of prefix and adjacency
   segments

             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
             | 16-bit and 32-bit | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
             |                   |      |     |      |       |
             |                   |      |     |      |       |
             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

                     Table 4: Lookups, Loose TE Paths

   Conclusion:

2.3.  State Efficiency

   The compression proposal SHOULD minimize the amount of additional
   forwarding state stored at a node.

   State efficiency is analyzed in a single sub-domain of the SR domain,
   where three parameters are considered:

   o  N: the number of nodes in the sub-domain
   o  I: the number of IGP algorithms [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
      configured
   o  A: the number of local adjacency SIDs

   For a core sub-domain with 1000 nodes, two IGP algorithms, and 100
   adjacencies per node:

   o  N=1000, I=2, A=100










Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
             | 16-bit and 32-bit | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
             | S(N1000,I2,A100)  |      |     |      |       |
             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

                         Table 5: Forwarding State

   Conclusion:

3.  SRv6 Specific Requirements

3.1.  SRv6 Based

   A solution to compress SRv6 SID Lists SHOULD be based on the SRv6
   architecture, control plane and data plane.  The compression solution
   MAY be based on a different data plane and control plane, provided
   that it derives sufficient benefit.

   This section records the use of SRv6 standards for compression.

                 +-----------+------+-----+------+-------+
                 |           | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
                 +-----------+------+-----+------+-------+
                 | U.RFC8402 |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.RFC8754 |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.PGM     |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.IGP     |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.BGP     |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.POL     |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.BLS     |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.SVC     |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.ALG     |      |     |      |       |
                 | U.OAM     |      |     |      |       |
                 +-----------+------+-----+------+-------+

                            Table 6: SRv6 Based

   Conclusion:

3.2.  Functional Requirements

3.2.1.  SRv6 Functionality

   A solution to compress an SRv6 SID list MUST support the
   functionality of SRv6.  This requirement ensures no SRv6
   functionality is lost.  It is particularly important to understand




Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


   how a proposal, as evaluated in section "SRv6 Based", provides this
   functionality.

   Functional requirements and the drafts defining how a proposal
   provides the functionality are documented in the table below.

         +------------------------------------------------------+
         | Draft reference Abbreviations                        |
         +------------------------------------------------------+
         | IDNETPGM: [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] |
         | IDSRPOL: [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]    |
         | IDEXT: [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]           |
         | IDBGPSVC: [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]              |
         | IDBGPLS: [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]               |
         | IDSVCP: [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming]     |
         | IDOAM: [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]               |
         | IDFLEXALG: [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]                  |
         | IDTILFA: [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]     |
         +------------------------------------------------------+

                  +---------+------+-----+------+-------+
                  |         | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
                  +---------+------+-----+------+-------+
                  | F.SID   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.Scope |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.PFX   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.ADJ   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.BIND  |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.PEER  |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.SVC   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.ALG   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.TILFA |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.SEC   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.IGP   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.BGP   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.POL   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.BLS   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.SFC   |      |     |      |       |
                  | F.PING  |      |     |      |       |
                  +---------+------+-----+------+-------+

                        Table 7: SRv6 Functionality

   Conclusion:







Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


3.2.2.  Heterogeneous SID Lists

   The compression proposal SHOULD support a combination of compressed
   and non-compressed segments in a single path.  As an example, a
   solution may satisfy this requirement without being SRv6 based by
   using a binding SID to impose an additional SRv6 header (IPv6 header
   plus optional SRH) with non-compressed SID.

          +-------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
          |                         | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
          +-------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
          | Heterogeneous SID Lists |      |     |      |       |
          +-------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

   Conclusion:

3.2.3.  SID List Length

   The compression proposal MUST be able to represent SR paths that
   contain up to 16 segments.

                +-------------+------+-----+------+-------+
                |             | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
                +-------------+------+-----+------+-------+
                | 16 Segments |      |     |      |       |
                +-------------+------+-----+------+-------+

   Conclusion:

3.2.4.  SID Summarization

   The solution MUST be compatible with segment summarization.

   In inter sub-domain deployments with summarization:

   o  Any node can reach any other node in another sub-domain via a
      prefix segment.
   o  Prefixes are summarized for advertisement between domains.

   Without summarization, border router SIDs must be leaked:

   o  An additional global prefix segment is required for each domain
      border to be traversed.








Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
             |                   | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
             | SID Summarization |      |     |      |       |
             +-------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

   Conclusion:

3.3.  Operational Requirements

3.3.1.  Lossless Compression

   A path traversed using a compressed SID list MUST always be the same
   as the path traversed using the uncompressed SID list if no
   compression was applied.

           +----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
           |                      | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
           +----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
           | Lossless Compression |      |     |      |       |
           +----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

   Conclusion:

3.4.  Scalability Requirements

   The compression proposal MUST be capable of representing 65000
   adjacency segments per node.

   The compression proposal MUST be capable of representing 1 million
   prefix segments per SID numbering space.

   The compression proposal MUST be capable of representing 1 million
   services per node.

       +-------------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
       |                               | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
       +-------------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
       | Adjacency Segment Scale 65000 |      |     |      |       |
       | Prefix Segment Scale 1000000  |      |     |      |       |
       | Service Scale 1000000         |      |     |      |       |
       +-------------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

                        Table 8: Scale Requirements

   Conclusion:





Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


4.  Protocol Design Requirements

4.1.  SRv6 Base Coexistance

   The compression proposal MUST support deployment in existing SRv6
   networks.

           +-----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
           |                       | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
           +-----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
           | SRv6 Base Coexistence |      |     |      |       |
           +-----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

   Conclusion:

5.  Security Requirements

5.1.  Security Mechanismns

   The compression solution SHOULD be able to address security issues
   that it introduces, using existing security mechanisms.

            +---------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
            |                     | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
            +---------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
            | Security Mechanisms |      |     |      |       |
            +---------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

   Conclusion:

5.2.  SR Domain Protection

   A compression solution must not require nodes outside the SR domain
   to know SID values within the SR domain, and it must provide the
   ability to block nodes outside an SR domain from accessing SIDS.

           +----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
           |                      | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR |
           +----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+
           | SR Domain Protection |      |     |      |       |
           +----------------------+------+-----+------+-------+

   Conclusion:








Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


6.  Conclusions

   Encapsulation Header Size

   -

   Forwarding Efficiency

   -

   State Efficiency

   -

   SRv6 Based

   -

   SRv6 Functionality

   -

   Heterogeneous SID lists

   -

   SID List Length

   -

   SID Summarization

   -

   Operational Requirements

   -

   Protocol Design Requirements

   -

   Scalability Requirements

   -

   Protocol Design Requirements




Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


   -

   Security Requirements

   -

7.  Normative References

   [I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr]
              Bonica, R., Kamite, Y., Alston, A., Henriques, D., and L.
              Jalil, "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)", draft-
              bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-24 (work in progress), January
              2021.

   [I-D.cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr]
              Cheng, W., Li, Z., Li, C., Clad, F., Aihua, L., Xie, C.,
              Liu, Y., and S. Zadok, "Generalized SRv6 Network
              Programming for SRv6 Compression", draft-cl-spring-
              generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-02 (work in progress), November
              2020.

   [I-D.decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid]
              Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Li, Z., and C. Li, "SRv6 vSID:
              Network Programming extension for variable length SIDs",
              draft-decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid-04 (work in progress),
              September 2020.

   [I-D.filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid]
              Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Cai, D., Voyer, D., Meilik,
              I., Patel, K., Henderickx, W., Jonnalagadda, P., Melman,
              D., Liu, Y., and J. Guichard, "Network Programming
              extension: SRv6 uSID instruction", draft-filsfils-spring-
              net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-08 (work in progress),
              November 2020.

   [I-D.filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc]
              Cheng, W., Filsfils, C., Li, Z., Cai, D., Voyer, D., Clad,
              F., Zadok, S., Guichard, J., and L. Aihua, "Compressed
              SRv6 Segment List Encoding in SRH", draft-filsfilscheng-
              spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc-02 (work in progress),
              November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]
              Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Matsushima, S., Voyer, D., and M.
              Chen, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
              in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)",
              draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-08 (work in progress),
              October 2020.



Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


   [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]
              Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Raszuk, R.,
              Decraene, B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "SRv6 BGP based
              Overlay services", draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05 (work
              in progress), November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
              Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M.,
              daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link
              State Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
              srv6-ext-05 (work in progress), November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
              Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
              A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
              algo-13 (work in progress), October 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
              Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over
              IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11
              (work in progress), October 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
              Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B.,
              and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using
              Segment Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-
              lfa-05 (work in progress), November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
              P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
              ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress),
              November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming]
              Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca,
              d., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C.,
              Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with
              Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-
              programming-03 (work in progress), September 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
              Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
              Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
              draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-28 (work in
              progress), December 2020.




Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


   [I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr]
              Cheng, W., Mirsky, G., Peng, S., Aihua, L., and G. Mishra,
              "Unified Identifier in IPv6 Segment Routing Networks",
              draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-08 (work in progress),
              January 2021.

   [I-D.srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement]
              Cheng, W., "Compressed SRv6 SID List Requirements", draft-
              srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-03 (work in
              progress), January 2021.

Authors' Addresses

   Ron Bonica
   Juniper

   Email: rbonica@juniper.net


   Weiqiang Cheng
   China Mobile

   Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com


   Darren Dukes
   Cisco Systems

   Email: ddukes@cisco.com


   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia

   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com


   Cheng Li
   Huawei

   Email: c.l@huawei.com


   Peng Shaofu
   ZTE

   Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn




Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             SRCOMP Requirements             February 2021


   Chongfeng Xie
   China Telecom

   Email: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn















































Bonica, et al.           Expires August 23, 2021               [Page 15]