IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

"Mark Townsley (townsley)" <townsley@cisco.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <townsley@cisco.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 E5CA7127275; Fri, 5 May 2017 04:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.123
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 zUXbdf7RTbLa; Fri, 5 May 2017 04:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9990127867; Fri, 5 May 2017 04:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2740; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493985424; x=1495195024; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Z6TFohnic1feC+UV8UtcDpcYJ0ObdcZjdnJOPslOllI=; b=TdpWMFajG67Km4qo9J0+B2QU1TBa1fByWGIV7iEfkc7P8v0BmtowCGmh da/KvszPlYy96AU3HqiTzFABqgqibWQtsnAM0osH8rr190AyKoBTRdioc WNfp1joyNlYahCJfUIDIvQKMXQXBNnGpi6cmMJc8N1nQj1x08zV7scCAv o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BBAQA5ZwxZ/4sNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1WBbgeDYYoYkVeIIo1Ogg+GJAIahC0/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRUBAQEBAgEjEUUFCwIBBgIYAgImAgICHxEVEAIEDgUbiW0DDQiTY51hgiaHKg2DLgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BC4cyK4JwglSCDxeCby6CMQEEnTQ7AY5EhFKRaIsjiRMBHziBCm8VWAGGX3aHaIENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,292,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="420429941"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 May 2017 11:57:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v45Bv2x9001207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 May 2017 11:57:02 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 5 May 2017 06:57:01 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 5 May 2017 06:57:01 -0500
From: "Mark Townsley (townsley)" <townsley@cisco.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
CC: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
Thread-Index: AQHSw2U/BOotKSR5yE+0kCHjckN3AaHk9L6AgADi1wCAACLZAA==
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 11:57:01 +0000
Message-ID: <FD28EC8A-CA02-4D6D-B6A3-D3B19C68DE4D@cisco.com>
References: <149374426742.21414.16408814015665498739@ietfa.amsl.com> <3E209B45-90CE-4EEB-9D2B-E14EFE28DCE0@cisco.com> <87a1534f-079d-3707-9f5d-9327e831bf7a@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87a1534f-079d-3707-9f5d-9327e831bf7a@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.43.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0762E6F421E4884295107E55B614AE63@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wsNTwqBuSPXHOSJro_5cTgMpAU4>
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: Fri, 05 May 2017 11:57:06 -0000

> On May 5, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/05/2017 21:20, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
>> On 5/2/17, 12:57 PM, "Stewart Bryant" <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Stewart:
>> 
>> Hi!  How are you?
>> 
>> Thanks for the detailed review!
>> 
>>> A significant part of the justification seems to evolve around the
>>> inability of MPLS to function in an IPv6 only network.
>> It seems to me that this statement summarizes many of the concerns you listed as Major in the review.  I can see why it seems like the justification is: “because MPLS doesn’t work, then we have to do IPv6.” – but I think that even if a complete solution exists (for an MPLS deployment on an IPv6-only network), some operators would still make the design choice of preferring an IPv6-only deployment.
>> 
>> I think that it would be good for the authors to refocus the justification away from “because X doesn’t work”.  Would that address this part of your concerns?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Alvaro.
>> 
> 
> Hi Alvaro,
> 
> That would be a step in the right direction particularly if Carlos' OPS comments were also addressed.
> 
> Without going back over the detail, I seem to remember I had a question as to how the homenet case worked given that SR needs topology info, and homenet has chosen a DV protocol.

HNCP performs topology discovery and prefix assignment within the home network, independent of the routing protocol being used.

- Mark

> 
> I also had a concerns about the validity of the scaling justification, and I think there are issues of trust that need to be discussed.
> 
> Both of those may be addressable simply by providing more detail as Carlos suggests.
> 
> Alternatively maybe it would be better to have a single use case: Operators that wish to deploy SR without an MPLS control plane, although as I note, you don't need an MPLS control plane to make MPLS SR work.
> 
> - Stewart
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email