Re: IPv4 EH proposal

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Sat, 07 September 2019 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
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 004CB120B15 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.232
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 1eTvv0Vay8vj for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 08:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.45]) (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 D546F1200E7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 08:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com (atl4qobmail01pod6.registeredsite.com [10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x87F1rUe026950 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 11:01:53 -0400
Received: (qmail 11000 invoked by uid 0); 7 Sep 2019 15:01:53 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 73.134.122.120
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.6?) (lee@asgard.org@73.134.122.120) by 0 with ESMTPA; 7 Sep 2019 15:01:53 -0000
Subject: Re: IPv4 EH proposal
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <BYAPR05MB5463153B47BFE83350C566E7AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ERm4x072JQZQovX0MVcea3=0DOCSESopAXj_SE1vMi8qkQ@mail.gmail.com> <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DFAE9362F9@dggemm529-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAO42Z2y-hq71wr9ogzmn2=rO0xySy63iXhNXrFDuqO7r5Pwa7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMFN5pbaVePWrJA61jd7f9d_2bU-Nu9oppFDsAc_B7APDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2x4-9-1YseuyqnCRh7c+J-zb2ksGXpk_Hs17H5uLz4Hvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHHMdGm6Qea4E1ugQBrSYFr7e-FgP+pxoErhEwRR9GwKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
Message-ID: <e31311de-6db5-8172-fbdd-11b461a330c8@asgard.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 11:01:52 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHHMdGm6Qea4E1ugQBrSYFr7e-FgP+pxoErhEwRR9GwKw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A10A4A753D9770A95E9AD084"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DY30Xs88vbFyoLI5KWpprFCtVJI>
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: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 15:01:59 -0000

IPv4 is dying. Let it go gracefully.

I'm completely opposed to any extensions to the IPv4 specification. By 
the time the feature set is code complpete, QA'd, and ready for general 
release, 80% of the world will be using IPv6.

Specific to this case, I have a very hard time understanding the 
business/engineering case where it would be optimal to implement these 
extensions rather than deploy IPv6, where they already exist.

Lee

On 9/7/19 7:32 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> /* Adjusting the subject to reflect the topic */
>
> Ok ... I looked at the new wave of mails in wrong order :)
>
> I like this proposal:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-01
>
> And have absolutely nothing against progressing it further - it looks 
> on the surface to be more efficient then sr-mpls over IP - but how 
> many bits are we saving needs to be calculated to state if cost of 
> introducing new encoding justifies the additional control plane, 
> protocol and platform efforts
>
> In fact if we would get to the consensus of using SRH with SID & BSID 
> to be of fixed 20 bits it can reuse a lot of mechanism build for 
> sr-mpls in any commercial router.
>
>  It is just a bit amazing that insertion of EHs into IPv4 would be 
> less problematic that in the case of IPv6 :) Maybe due to allowed 
> fragmentation.
>
> As to the host dropping packets due to unknown protocol - let's 
> observe that SR domain would clean such EH before passing packets 
> further.
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 1:14 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com 
> <mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:56, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net
>     <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
>     >
>     > > It's tempting to write up SR over IPv4
>     >
>     > You don't have to write anything ... it is already written and
>     looks like moving fwd :)
>     >
>     > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-07
>     >
>
>     That's tunnelling MPLS over SR over IPv4. I'm talking about native SR
>     over IPv4 e.g. "SRv4".
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------