Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 30 March 2017 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B81129470; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mw7lgibD3uFj; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B20201293D9; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id y18so1469693itc.1; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=pRGosb/buy6mVCYdGDfkT8YZSNflXKzHXljqtkvG2H8=; b=b5kT1pKZ3pXOFU88nnYOOJi+pSoYs8i34UaSy4TbP4uCOdYnImotJPP+B4bTVGEWXX 4Df4vv19iMCZcBGeV8JQlp9I+oTFAnXUhSYu81a6f0iYTpX6+O9eKuiG1KCuqs4sGOC8 IV5VQjesvKaK7SBydK5Ec9yUE7ZVz1b8JmGxDmiCWV7qYlmy6ImN8XAAbWsZlzpC0YIJ JWEHv1QRGYkUXTxUl9eqbk6INRnM5ZUqA/4MAWVSnI+oN67Ddmy/lizG+gWSImvGUuBm cv4afvZ5UmqlC0r9wkZajHT7+hI7JE7F8HL0Fr+fRQKykRC6DmGL39UY+kS7yd1Rc5vS 2MDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pRGosb/buy6mVCYdGDfkT8YZSNflXKzHXljqtkvG2H8=; b=sG3KMp0O5+48xt0QWaqfy0vCZe49NBcidgkwkVeuCRT2BJvA5xyzFwymo3XUUhXkul Z9fOLAI4q1QcqE4yBw6UygYtEtMDhRGJiIb5eGVz137PCk/ryJzvNKmdTfohPWn3t4+s sLSM5jAIyTPPZIskGx0tdHL2aipMp0l9kADpLZYKfFJJqQ6fBrePPWwJrz5At383fGSu l80PjkrXp5yItxQtYIDxjuLG8e/hpy4rYf60cXQIlNtw25vIZFCIynhHg8aDLmnUmOed tF+L0GwOvNWWYqWAdCtydbqghRCJdPaT/NJ0uZNR9iHRV1H6EIdixiLCnR1+xkAtjdmS od4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1vFgvXyqB8ETRUL6TRykiKPRuV3ufDCm0LFMwetnhghEwbCsiuoCIxwNO+zi96ovYo7E75tCu6wd7CZg==
X-Received: by 10.36.85.194 with SMTP id e185mr166821itb.39.1490906701028; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.90.71 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.90.71 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2x-wVez3A36dDSEVLWN1z5YXkLjb5Vx7b9KJzv7KTVcZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <6B662F87-B0E6-4613-B406-8A22CA95DFA5@cisco.com> <4917F161-2EC8-43E0-AF4C-BFAEE44A492C@cable.comcast.com> <CC4FF04D-0712-4304-BD5F-3D9F57E533A3@ericsson.com> <CY4PR14MB1368118932BAB02AE83C781FD7340@CY4PR14MB1368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2x-wVez3A36dDSEVLWN1z5YXkLjb5Vx7b9KJzv7KTVcZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:44:59 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: mKCh2bGIY2_AGox3ahNqnu4X-z0
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERn372ixLhuS0Z_qSm=RxHxfqzUyAuDN5bg5ndzykxJAEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, "Ackermann, Michael" <MAckermann@bcbsm.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143d1484f0c27054bf8c466
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-B8yXih1vW07G3Wp7f0LDsdg2Y8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:45:07 -0000

Hi Mark,

And this is precisely what we are saying.

Enterprise I work for has global L3VPN network with MPLS, LDP, 3107 across
3 ASes spanning the globe. Obviously with that you also need various
InterAS options.

On top of that there is some limited need for inter-as TE so you employ
static EROs and RSVP-TE.

We have need to do efficient p2mp data distribution in WAN which again
requires another set of different protocols.

Imagine opex with all of the above.

And at this time SRv6 delivers all of the above applications with huge
reduction of need of various protocols mentioned above.

That was the point.

Cheers,
R.





On Mar 30, 2017 15:24, "Mark Smith" <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> The thing to keep in mind is that enterprises use technology to solve
> business problems. Technology is a means to an end, not the end
> itself.
>
> For general Internet or internal networking problems, IPv6 doesn't
> solve the problem any better than IPv4 does. That is why Enterprises
> haven't adopted it for their Internet or general internal networks.
> Adding IPv6 is actually worse - it just increases their capex and opex
> for no business benefit.
>
> I've heard SR recently called the next MPLS. So how many Enterprises
> have adopted MPLS?
>
> When Enterprises need to access IPv6 Internet services, they'll just
> IPv6 enable their boundary Internet access security devices and mail
> servers.
>
> IPv6 will be used by Enterprises when it either provides a compelling
> advantage over IPv4, or where a vendor's "turn key" solution uses it.
> I've seen that recently with AMI smartmeter mesh networks.
>
> Here in Victoria, AU, there are probably in the order of 1M+ IPv6 AMI
> smart meters across multiple electricity distributors. They're using
> IPv6 for that because that is what the vendor's end-to-end AMI
> solution uses. They use IPv4 to access the OSS and servers that are
> used to troubleshoot that network, and there is no real benefit for
> the organisation to deploy IPv6 on their internal LANs to access those
> servers.
>
> Inventing a new IPv6 feature just to try to encourage adoption isn't
> going to be that successful. The new feature has to be a compelling
> solution to a problem that the enterprise has, that justifies the
> additional and typically very large expense of deploying IPv6 to get
> it.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
>
> On 31 March 2017 at 03:54, Ackermann, Michael <MAckermann@bcbsm.com>
> wrote:
> > This is something I tried to say at the mic today, but I was too late.
> > If we put potentially valuable use cases into the bucket of
> "Exceptions",  this becomes yet another excuse to delay or avoid adoption
> of IPv6 by the very large percentage of Enterprises who have yet to do so
> (and have no serious plans) today.
> >
> > I am hopeful that work in the IETF will provide features and hence
> motivation for us sadly delinquent Enterprises to begin actually using
> IPv6.    I am concerned that perception of solutions being "Exceptions" or
> non standard, will cause consternation (warranted or not) and avoidance.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
> > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:30 AM
> > To: Leddy, John <John_Leddy@comcast.com>
> > Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>;
> ietf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
> >
> > Hi John,
> >   Thanks for chiming in. I recognize that you might have use cases that
> might be better off with header insertion but I think they should be
> handled as and when they come up for consideration (e.g. in the SRv6
> discussions). Holding up this document is not going to help in any way in
> reinterpreting what RFC2460 intended. My suggestion for proponents of safe
> header insertion to write up how it is expected to work and have the
> discussion then.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Suresh
> >
> >> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 PM, Leddy, John <John_Leddy@comcast.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:47 PM, Suresh Krishnan <
> suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> NEW:
> >>>
> >>> With one exception, extension headers are not examined, processed,
> >>> inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path,
> >>> until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in
> >>> the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of
> >>> the IPv6 header...
> >>>
> >>> Please feel free to comment either privately or on list if you have
> any concerns with this resolution going forward.
> >>
> >>
> >> Suresh,
> >>
> >> I still have concerns that we are eliminating a tool that may prove
> very helpful in migrations without understanding its value.
> >>
> >> The Internet transition of IPV4 -> Dual Stack V4/V6 -> IPV6 Only; has
> been long, operationally complex and full of unexpected challenges.
> >> We are only now starting to make the transition from Dual Stack to IPV6
> Only, there are still many unknowns on how to complete this migration.
> >>
> >> As we contemplate finishing this major Network shift – We find
> ourselves in the early stages of another.
> >>
> >> The transition from Physical to Virtual Infrastructure.  Again, the
> migration will be long, operationally complex and full of unexpected
> challenges.
> >>
> >> In the old world with Servers running Applications in Physical
> locations designed for very predictable loads; using an encap/decap tunnel
> to emulate a physical circuit between locations has many attractive
> properties – but that is compared to actually ordering and provisioning
> real circuits between locations.
> >>
> >> In the new world of dynamic resources spun up on demand in distributed
> environments across multiple providers, Applications having the
> Intelligence and State to bring up their own required connectivity is very
> natural.  This is where we are putting the majority of our efforts.  SRv6
> enables very attractive solutions by Applications building their own
> headers.
> >>
> >> The challenges come as we try to migrate and require these two
> infrastructures to Interoperate for a long time.
> >> Burdening the new Virtual world with Old, Static circuit paradigms is
> not optimal.
> >> Supplementing the legacy infrastructure with an assist function seems
> >> a reasonable solution.  (Ext Hdr insertion/deletion or encap/decap
> >> tunnels)
> >>
> >> The preferred assist mechanism seems to be the one that allows the New
> >> World to operate in its final preferred state, sending and receiving
> packets with their own headers. (SRv6) But what does an Application in the
> new world due when it is attempting to communicate with an Application in
> the Old World?
> >> Shouldn’t it build an SRv6 header?  That would mean that the assist
> function would need to be the last SID in the Segment List and be capable
> of removing the SRH.
> >> Wouldn’t it make sense for the assist function to do the same thing in
> the reverse direction; an Old World Server talking to a New Virtual World
> Application?  Insert an SRH.
> >>
> >> If this insert/delete of an SRH is prematurely prohibited;  What is a
> recommended solution to the Real World problem above.  Not use case, we are
> implementing.
> >>
> >> Again; I’m worried we are eliminating a tool that may prove very
> >> helpful, preclude its use in future IETF work and shutdown a path for
> >> Innovation in Networking,
> >>
> >> Thank you for asking and listening to my concerns,
> >>
> >> John Leddy
> >> Comcast
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this communication is highly confidential
> and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this
> communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of
> this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic
> mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original
> message without making any copies.
> >
> >  Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan
> are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and
> Blue Shield Association.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>