IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Per segment service instructions

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 17 September 2019 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 D901C120274; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 02:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 VkHOyw1V47lA; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 02:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50DC812026E; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 02:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3274C; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:30:22 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1568712619; bh=AT2g2rBmByW+QVear0X u2UYGQ3h3/0eA1z7Shh67kSc=; b=q8EACc2n/2AZBY/kzjOVXtPsmWkDlJc6+WJ zBCLdciXczCgDMXgDPc9fgK5p3KmrEXwx70XUv9Cezi3zs5H4sUdDoUr886UXXeB OOKILmsh3dP5X3AKLfbN2jiajmc1uzfhm72u5bgxzKIdRHiA3fY4Ipx5NyVETpeB fH0VxqRI=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 73t2kKK46VBn; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:30:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:357e:5c6e:504b:cf4] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:357e:5c6e:504b:cf4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B1504B; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:30:19 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <36C78D1D-66A6-4AB9-AD18-874E59201D3D@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2CA184AF-84AA-485A-A6C1-886A2B097ABD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: [spring] Per segment service instructions
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:30:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=zufrB+NMaPQY7mmsdzyRZsy1fFb=86zr-BTbLnvgCgw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
References: <5971B5F4-74C1-4DD0-BBD2-D76BE105532E@bell.ca> <BYAPR19MB3415DA7196E45FF52A740ED3FC8C0@BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ER=zufrB+NMaPQY7mmsdzyRZsy1fFb=86zr-BTbLnvgCgw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3rYb06WNDe00LRJtcojNImiL9l8>
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:30:27 -0000

Hi Robert,

> Your line of thinking is correct but please no more additional levels of abstraction. Why not just use normal routable prefix on the node as part of the instruction ?

How large a prefix do you envision is needed per node? What size are we talking about (roughly)?

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email