Re: [arch-d] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-17.txt> (Internet Architecture?)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 27 August 2020 02:56 UTC

From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
To: last-call@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
Message-ID: <dfdf1b1e-0105-bb4d-955f-41110b01a0ee@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 23:56:39 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/fHIRgVIkwhBz7qIy6fHBzafQGJY>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-17.txt> (Internet Architecture?)
Precedence: list

Folks,

I'd like to note that this document seems to be going three major 
aspects of the Internet and IPv6 architecture:

* The basic Internet architecture with its removal of extension headers 
in the middle of the network.

* The addressing architecture -- where addresses are employED for means 
other than those specified in RFC4291

* The processing of segment routing headers, with th PSP behaviour 
specified in this document (as already noted by Brian Carpenter).

While it is always possible for documents to update or go against the 
current architecture, I believe the community should discuss these 
behaviors as such (changes to the architecture), and make an explicit 
decision in this respect.

The implications and consequences of these changes should be carefully 
analyzed, since the implications are non-trivial.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

Re: [arch-d] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-n… Fernando Gont