IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Segment Routing Drafts

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 01 March 2019 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A059130F90 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:26:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 dxh3PbJ-et2o for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com (mail-ot1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]) (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 D64EC130F49 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id 98so22439473oty.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:26:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=zqsqBDYq9wFg+e4DjXG4sINIZVmHHIyTgs3KenKz4qc=; b=pfMQ4CNyBY6SWjoKYtsHnhvwZL24EYtZ56lLlP0mXGFNGyYuIzK/mXaaayVIXXgQrV t/BFkaYsZ4M79LP48Q41exBXNust+Ru61yyui3GkdPki+HhfkwjgHYkkiJB1dviF5nTl 9VvUNotAhFQVtqyzNFvu0WtAQ6wxln0ei3D+GlDOcFNY7USZHCduoDVeARNIMNVrOxG+ PXVKoO2ucJnq1MJPBuQWRi/TuYqUDl6W9KT49ADoCAoDwMycKb2R+8p4fr1GptyUGT5f 6dCTizbsVDkNdpaVqU97ALeegN8wVMJfFqSuZ4qrxx9M62eBpi6jIKEldcj3DO2yP4uR Itcg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=zqsqBDYq9wFg+e4DjXG4sINIZVmHHIyTgs3KenKz4qc=; b=A6fTbYyhOT50zb4m2beMipZPF7cXJ5V3zTUecB+dejiRtZgjy7HLd8i922FuNZeDcJ XFswI3EC7Ef9bytN9fnfievkPu+SLu+qlpeEJSTuImB8LFbwGuoY6lBOEHkw4GAUXFag M/Tw6igd9poK5gAscdyqp770wSk2eHI4rWqQcgypfi7F1M8l+DXfw1jy0rA2b8ktA+vc 5M1FuZAfGWgZ65SFQb2vR40nxrdZE3ye4NCrQO0DfviFT8WeJUra1LqDsG6Ckhplyuxn BvQEAhBYKvClv6dsPXE2e26ri0dA4JLTQK3Tt2HTYmberoiyTorkA21UngcDkyxDcBAJ Bb9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVrEZH4AGQfUQF7dj99yak5QSnt7yiBS8Fy8Ep55wwiyZy9s1Lo Aszf07k+QIHatc3btMV0+jc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwZVnmqanyoL/9D9GoExisI3F/RhqzD9jTyXzTCCweJAiym8E+MbB4/BpYim7si+clrUMogLQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:134b:: with SMTP id r11mr5070627otq.213.1551479162957; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5600:164::1016? ([2600:8802:5600:164::1016]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k100sm12568720otk.5.2019.03.01.14.26.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:26:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <341A6C5C-3670-4C8F-A8CA-C80182AC1F3C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7205490-A3FB-40CF-A366-42BCC8F1EF2E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.2\))
Subject: Re: Segment Routing Drafts
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:25:59 -0800
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB424560001F76E403A33B94E7AE750@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB424560001F76E403A33B94E7AE750@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3NAJIcjJt0pr2CYFTBUDtwy3y7M>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 22:26:07 -0000


> On Feb 27, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-oam/

I read this draft, and was immediately puzzled. The OAM option is useful if and only if it is implemented and configured, and (per the security considerations) is a reason the packet should not be permitted to enter aa subsequent network. As such, it is only useful on a small subset of the systems it encounters, and only in the originating network.

Am I reading this correctly?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email