[bess] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS)

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have little to add to the DISCUSSes held by others beyond my support.

However, I would like to discuss having SRv6 control plane information, i.e.
SIDs and their behaviours etc., being isolated by associating it with
a separate SAFI.  Any other protocol element that needs to refer to such
information can make reference to it through context-appropriate extensions.

{AFI=IPv6, SAFI=unicast} is a valid way to advertise an SRv6 locator prefix,
for example, as that's just IPv6 forwarding information.  If SRv6-specific
information where separately advertised as {AFI=IPv6, SAFI=SRv6} then I
suspect it would be simpler to filter out that information, detect leaks,
and generally help the SRv6 domain fail closed more easily.

But I'm prepared to learn why this wouldn't work or would be somehow worse.