Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA

[Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>]

Correct me if I am wrong – but – removal is still in there – which violates exactly the same section of text and breaks things like the AH?

Or are we saying – its ok to only half violate the text? 😊

Andrew


From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril=[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 20:13
To: Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Header Insertion and TI-FA

Gyan,

SRH insertion is NOT part of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15.
(SRH insertion is documented in draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion-02 with a normative reference to draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08).

> Spring - Please provide section within PGM that has the verbiage of the 6in6 encapsulation

This is already in the net-pgm draft (since rev 00). Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15#section-5<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15#section-5> .

Thanks,
Pablo.

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: lunes, 11 de mayo de 2020 18:02
To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA


Krzysztof

So you agree with what I stated as the workaround.

Please read through exactly what I stated as the complete workaround.

If we are all in agreement with the prepend (6in6) encap) workaround can we have the PGM draft updated to reflect.

All

With regards to the 6MAN appeal,  the issues were PSP and this issue with TI-LFA from what I recall.

Was their any other issue outside of these two mentioned in the appeal that we need to address and come up with a workaround?

Thank you

Gyan

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:09 AM Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

If we have prepend, why bother with insertion at all? Prepend (6in6 encap) is much cleaner, IMHO.

Regards,
Krzysztof

> On 2020 -May-11, at 16:38, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> > normalizing header insertion for the special case where the PLR is a segment endpoint
>
> When an operator is serious about good data plane protection with TI-LFA all nodes in the network will be enabled for SR. The less overhead required for the protection the better. You may just not have a room for adding additional 40 bytes to each packet at each potential PLR without fragmentation.
>
> Regarding all of your other TI-LFA related questions - I am sure Krzysztof will be happy to answer them for you internally :)  After all this is what your public demo was all about ....
>
> Best,
> Robert,
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Gyan  Mishra
Network Engineering & Technology
Verizon
Silver Spring, MD 20904
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>