Re: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 05 November 2019 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 F019D1200F7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:51:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 qX76X8a-byqM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:51:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A16451200CE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:51:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2121:283:c860:d12a:cf:e287:3e7f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE0D34E11A76; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:51:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97BA21913FF; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 08:51:19 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF07ACE4@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 08:51:19 +0100
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B5464B84-1105-4133-8E77-09FF739D8D38@employees.org>
References: <CALx6S35298CHBJsSs3LGY_0Pp2_eW-dQFCbQ6SLQneoQ5U=_yQ@mail.gmail.com> <FE11E326-43C2-409C-864E-62AD8B893050@employees.org> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF07ACE4@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/G00bgifZ4jLskaPr5aOjazAzMbQ>
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, 05 Nov 2019 07:51:27 -0000

Hi Tianran,

> Yes, your proposal is a very good guidance for users to choose the mode how to take the alt-mark field.
> We will revise to show these considerations.
> But I think this is for the idea cases.
> We would also like to show some "abnormal" usage for legacy network. :-)
> That is to say, using SRH and DO for the hop by hop usage. I see the similar usage in RFC7837.
> What's your thoughts?

From RFC7837:
   "Hop-by-hop options would have been the best solution for carrying
   ConEx markings if they had met requirement R-3.  There is currently
   some work ongoing in the 6MAN working group to address this very
   issue [HBH-HEADER].  This new behavior would address R-3 and would
   make hop-by-hop options the preferred solution for carrying ConEx
   markings."

The work in 6MAN is done and the definition of HBH is updated in RFC8200.

Best regards,
Ole