# SPRING @IETF-116 Wednesday 29 March 2023 Room: G403 13:00-15:00 Local Log into the IETF datatracker to access: * [MeetEcho](https://wws.conf.meetecho.com/conference/?group=spring) * [Notes](https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-116-spring) * [Zulip]( https://zulip.ietf.org/#narrow/stream/spring) Note Takers: * Dhruv Dhody * *(please add your name if you are helping with the minutes)* SPRING WG Meeting Agenda ---------------- ### SPRING Status - Chairs (10 mins) * Congrats Jim as new RTG AD (and will be responsible AD) * Thanks Andrew * Welcome Alvaro as new WG Chair * DoH v/s SRH TLV * [Giuseppe Fioccola]: During adoption, Greg suggested to consider SRH TLV as experimental for a short term, before we finalize the options. * [Bruno Decraene]: Good suggestion, will consider it. ### SRv6 Path Egress Protection (10 mins) Presenter: Huaimo Chen (huaimo.chen@futurewei.com) [draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection/) * [Jim Guichard]: Please read the document and provide feedback on the list ### SRv6 Midpoint Protection (10 mins) Presenter: Huaimo Chen (huaimo.chen@futurewei.com) [draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection/) * [Bruno]: midpoint protection document exist in the SPRING WG, why the SRv6 work is in the RTGWG. * [Huaimo]: While at high level the mechanism are the same, the details are different, for example in the SR-MPLS we can change stack and SRv6 we need to do encap. * [Huaimo]: I am open to 1 draft in 1 WG * [Yingzhen Qu]: (as RTGWG co-chair), the WG is aware of SR-MPLS work in the SPRING and that is why we suggested presenting here. The behavior should be consistant. * [Louis Chan]: (slide 4) P1 will drop the the packet if no reachability for N, but if N is ABR and no visibility this is an issue * [Huaimo]: This is midpoint protection only! * [Himanshu Shah]: Stack was created with some intent, does P1 know the intent (latency) to be able to switch to bypass! * [Huaimo]: No, it does not know and does not care! Maybe in future! * [Yingzhen]: (As a participant) How does P1 know to jump the pointer? * [Huaimo]: P1 does not know about the failure? Before IGP convergence, there is a FWD entry to P1 on the shortest path via P3, P3 is directly connected to N, P3 does normal FRR before IGP convergence. PLR does existing midpoint convergence. * [Zhibo Hu]: If the ABR failed node, inter-domain routing should make it work. * [Shraddha]: There is a WG document for SR-MPLS, we have updated the solution to use rear-side tunneling to solve the problem. This solution does not work for micro-SID and common solution should be prefered. * [Huaimo]: Node-SID is example, draft also support other SIDs (ex. adj-SID). At high level things are same but the details are different. Lets discuss in the list. * [Sasha]: Same as Shraddha! SRv6 makes things simpler, authors should work on a merged solution. ### SRv6 Underlay tunnel Programming (10 mins) Presenter: LiuYan Han/Minxue Wang (hanliuyan@chinamobile.com) [draft-han-spring-srv6-underlay-tunnel-programming](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-han-spring-srv6-underlay-tunnel-programming/) * No questions! ### Extending ICMP for IP-related Information Validation (10 mins) Presenter: Yao Liu (liu.yao71@zte.com.cn) [draft-liu-6man-icmp-verification](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-6man-icmp-verification/) * No comments! ### Distribute SRv6 Locator by DHCP (10 mins) Presenter: Weiqiang Cheng (chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com) [draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp/) * [Jim]: Work will be done in DHC WG, you are asking for feedback from SPRING? * [Weiqiang Cheng]: We are presenting as per the DHC chair request to get feedback. * [Timothy Winters]: (As DHC chair) We meed to make sure it is actually get used and we dont want to waste limited DHCP options! ### SRv6 Egress Protection in Multi-homed scenario (10 mins) Presenter: Weiqiang Cheng (chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com) [draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection/) * No comments ### Security Considerations for SRv6 Networks (5 mins) Presenter: Nan Geng (gengnan@huawei.com) [draft-li-spring-srv6-security-consideration](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-spring-srv6-security-consideration/) * [Jim]: Chairs wanted the security consideration for SRv6 for a while. This could be the one. Please talk to Joel in this area. * [Andrew Alston]: (as participant), Section 1 states that the SRv6 uses SRH -- not always true. Section 3, you say trusted domain but it is huge leap that trusted domain will always remain trusted. Statements that certain things don't happen purely on the basis of trusted domain simply aren't accurate - and we need to acknowledge the problems before we attempt to fix them. *[Andrew Alston] (continued - as participant) Further to the above - if you claim something does not happen - it does not hold that you provide a solution for something that in the previous paragraph was claimed didn't occur. * [Nan Geng]: We will consider them and respond on the mailing list. * [Jim]: Provide feedback to authors working on security aspects ### Problem statement for Inter-domain Intent-aware Routing using Color (5 mins) Presenter: Shraddha Hegde (shraddha@juniper.net) [draft-hr-spring-intent-aware-routing-using-color](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color/) * No comments ### Auto Edge Protection (10 mins) Presenter: Shraddha Hegde (shraddha@juniper.net) [draft-hegde-spring-auto-edge-protection](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-auto-edge-protection/) * No comments ### SID as source address in SRv6 (5 mins) Presenter: Feng Yang (yangfeng@chinamobile.com) [draft-yang-spring-sid-as-source-address](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-spring-sid-as-source-address/01/) * No comments ### SRv6/MPLS Service Interwork Option BC (10 mins) Presenter: Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang (zzhang@juniper.net) [draft-zzhang-spring-service-interworking](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-spring-service-interworking/) * [Bruno]: Present in the BESS WG * [Liu Yao]: Option B, huge number of SID entries problem. Uslly we full FUNCT part but in this draft we use only higher bits which is challenge for ROUTER. When route are re-advertised SRv6 to SR-MPLS, SID allocation method is used, different part in 20 bits translated to SR-MPLS. Which requires mechanism for SID Allocation * [Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang]: for 1st part, Treat it as IPv6 route! For 2nd, draft has details about how to handle more than 20 bits, VRF label is just an example, it could be any label. Speaker Shuffling Time/Buffer: 10 minutes Total Presentation Time: 115 minutes