IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard

Hemant Singh <hemantietf@gmail.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <hemantietf@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 516AD12973A; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:22:16 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 TAtjXhzQH_dU; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x235.google.com (mail-yb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::235]) (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 63317129671; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x235.google.com with SMTP id a184so56673577ybb.0; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:22:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vZZZCQ3cCvBayWFEpbPIqG54D/xNHMQH0qTsNld5Thk=; b=LbfuGkp8QlbakyAcu94l0QAr2EBKAfcFUHZ7ZRWxiTpe1v8rTcfn/eDbbR+yvR4mvv dWDPsnE0f0/d4/wWtmI88LBpttDXxt8tDGyAl00MeLwAPw5NhYJu60fUI7GvbNihYVa4 bzPgiMv8lLd+Ek4+i8BGwMSdf70fWuWrPOnVORSN51Dlfc7HIdkjMoccsFFUK7mDzkaa vOvGFmCUm79a5HfGI/2BvKETk1NkdP+H0+uGlmNQy68G8chUrSEEWgr0oNKhdUvj1Gyt Dw8MZ7ks7tFjpe7wZw/+OFp4tJ4huHhf2Gw9OqaAZ36hbyiHmDALj4D0USlMQMCgM2gs 1fXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vZZZCQ3cCvBayWFEpbPIqG54D/xNHMQH0qTsNld5Thk=; b=e3Uk7p9YhDPoNUvAUFy1u+VQAwipwmctiUKM3sFd/nrXTFseDKmlgT/0uZISEwwxBF NTK7+c4GIkCm0vmagj1PM5JzFFYdY6+xcYKDLo21XlfZFR3+jc/IerRnc+OB+ZNFYMrH GG5BEIcvxP52L1T4maRg7Y0sb8IdIUPeukmKw6hJlFd2iZVX2Ce+QjqHzKSEcC7caj/b f4CkVlgS7a8w5H1S3m3JEH2iEM9y083xCCffKr77oVj0ANmLXuWgAkCQRiqgNmA/TBtn xqK3MhVEhYVeiM4Vb4f6cXGxPMGAaIfXNIdnMwHSKypyA8G5tUTDfh4AKhEdCEA/BOXF Ob/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC002J9zIXr7qioK8PMLw8IaN920EE4IrDcQkxfVZpmEjQ8TQXRljq6OMtlFoGydeJ0eYHHuf3810kPIFMA==
X-Received: by 10.157.53.119 with SMTP id l52mr1428042ote.79.1479392533550; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:22:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.15.33 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:22:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqczRSZYWC3tDLXvxRMzqnV9nDjYjUddyRHtwfpGEXvm5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <451D4151-B805-4A2E-8BAC-B6627C0B669C@employees.org> <CAJE_bqczRSZYWC3tDLXvxRMzqnV9nDjYjUddyRHtwfpGEXvm5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hemant Singh <hemantietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:22:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CABdyVt5rhiR6TbvFw8m81R_7Hs3t4APrpdd5W-4U6En4dYq1WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, sprevidi@cisco.com, bruno.decraene@orange.com, stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c021967244d105417feab4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HPCM_KKRucTCkkXC9_r6caG4aQA>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:22:16 -0000

I have cced to a few SR folks.  Why did the SR implementation in the Linux
kernel go with add/delete EH rather than encapsulation?   Why wasn't
encapsulation used first with SR for the Linux kernel implementation?

Thanks,

Hemant


On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:18 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> At Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:19:45 +0900,
> otroan@employees.org wrote:
>
>
> Assuming so, I'd like to say I still have a serious concern with this
> text in that it's as "ambiguous" to the extent the original RFC2460
> was ambiguous regarding whether the protocol intends (intended) to
> allow such extension header insertion.  I'm concerned about this
> because such ambiguity can lead to casual violation of the intent (we
> know the intent was to not allow it) and casually dismissing the
> stated problems and other issues that are not explicitly noted in the
> text.  The existence of segment routing implementation for the Linux
> kernel (a general purpose operating system) suggests it's not just an
> imaginary concern: http://www.segment-routing.org/index.php/SR/SR-IPv6
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email