IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reference based Routing (RbR)

tony.li@tony.li Sun, 24 May 2020 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@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 381503A0C69; Sun, 24 May 2020 11:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 qvjIZom8Lmnq; Sun, 24 May 2020 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (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 48C903A0C66; Sun, 24 May 2020 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id q16so6653773plr.2; Sun, 24 May 2020 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=emG6p8VjacY8x6dpd7EABwSVTHioZF8M6wiCkPJPXOw=; b=Vg/XJaXmVa/anJ1GvdAQqglIxzWBDc3AWVUU2YATXs2Prs8d5sjUZd/fd74B8iLeGW 6KJ0jJn419Orm2+i+XhQc4cjO0oi3q7ZI8LBV1t9jqCwwT63CGfAHnL9G0RRyXUqbArA nHn3OG72+RkcnaMxiIRU9SkB5olzeOzW3oeuZ9NSNuRppPOGgxQ0/beiahpj0issjpIt yJRbL5gxA93CdO1u8At0y4Fmqewqa8QbJi30h05s1N4713jwfxTYM32CvSnN4s0JZAPC /MhTHXVYKRTrK8TJgNieQtHkZ2+5CEbBPP9qXYar1Gtk8ULU5iWjGx3Z/SR+HyxLYzow U6+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=emG6p8VjacY8x6dpd7EABwSVTHioZF8M6wiCkPJPXOw=; b=hdFWcoRBzH4ap6l5Tjv6zegFGWwgVRCyzUxV4gaJRGrLGqqfjFQISN7iOQQU2DQpR4 C9GSABq+bfuLn1pUgxFzZMV1bVAHGUNQdiGu+chuwI9+DEKaWbm39UXhQ0fy2bDpokUe dQgV5euiDfJZHGCtCjz1Czw2v80IvPmt5i8vIjYLrJD1/coCkGzlTqW2xMNXNdb233RG SotzslHYEs1QyPmzL89Q6rQIaCbIPW3uDDjrHHU0MO21uZntuBQq3hhwfsZV8QJTr4C+ SzK9pvVU45aRFPLzTe9kvOozcuIT3fmxm+WxrKTNK682uWfRynMiE9tzjXDXeO/FHqyI FLZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533h29jVQ1cVwgFtifV2ue2xskPrMNIj+LetOj9lJv1xXl5ltF0w g/hEKF3T3Ki3k4ofM9vbbpqu2yX3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8LsSLrsG8Qu7n3cNZdaCcoUazKbuLC0SexeMP0KPQE2CgoB/6h2jvzxviGQBul7F8ttSZvQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9043:: with SMTP id w3mr23236055plz.250.1590343837687; Sun, 24 May 2020 11:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.95.93.243] ([162.210.129.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l9sm11875131pfd.5.2020.05.24.11.10.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 24 May 2020 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: Reference based Routing (RbR)
From: tony.li@tony.li
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGh-L3TRsdPyiaXRKwhYz2+kF+xhWE3N3Lc+hnPv4dkQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 11:10:35 -0700
Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <82165E20-884F-467B-B364-1B0A8B84A38A@tony.li>
References: <CAOj+MMHvKpD1b2rbViZtdjtEFz2FEEH3jt4C8+6Kod+h0yEXMQ@mail.gmail.com> <384EB737-E83F-4FA7-B779-AC380D3C59AD@tony.li> <CAOj+MMGh-L3TRsdPyiaXRKwhYz2+kF+xhWE3N3Lc+hnPv4dkQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IPRcIZLgnHwKY41IORR3H27Gs2U>
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: Sun, 24 May 2020 18:10:40 -0000

Hi Robert,

> If I would insert a reference into flow label space I am afraid I would lose the current flow label functionality which perhaps in some cases may not be desired. 


Is someone actually using the flow label?  As far as I know it’s wholly unused.


> To your second hint - by all means yes - anyone could use the MPLS label in an MPLS network to indicate a context. Pointer can be a context. Some may argue that 20 bits may not be enough thought.


In which case you use a label stack and create a hierarchy of paths: a path traverses the source area, pushes into a trunk to transit the backbone, and then drops back to a single label to traverse the destination area.


> However the exercise here is to provide a form of path steering for IPv6 networks where transport MPLS is not enabled by design. 


Is that a problem that needs to be solved?


> Last I am not sure what "messing with address space" comment really meant to indicate ... 


Changing the semantics of any part of the address space may require more semantic and pragmatic changes than would be necessary via other approaches.

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email