Re: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 22 May 2019 04:45 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 7E4491200EA; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.497 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 nWqD_JkBFFYg; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (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 5C0D7120072; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id t24so850761otl.12; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XSXrhBZJGH4L8CknzEgVX7I2AroRx0lmedEid2/IIMU=; b=V26++BAM4QleQOOtdNMJ8JjitZBqwNDADTndOjooXPjUWdmUsXl5k9ZOJ5eokAWd/3 Ev6aq8iH3VdF+0/5S+OeA1mtU9fSumfqZsxZlHKe86bcPtKe7jhfyRJYVgaaaa9WL8bR J+DcRcRViRMnrUyQVAsew+xpxz9VemDq3FtMg9RMW/K9lAfZ09LYd8uAL4MxW7GXyY6Q GpquR8T1i2tMMyg+PJADUSIN4Z/xUQ8kYwjDse/eGwtWPNes/ruuQ0taoD1WE/MmtHWN syqlBrwB0Q6yt1c8QILj6R3CEdTeqQGaq8JPteHG2GfeKUy48nKvNZlp6huxQbNstJ1c 4hgQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XSXrhBZJGH4L8CknzEgVX7I2AroRx0lmedEid2/IIMU=; b=aXwhUFgWiR9In61KQt2NLMLufsCrXjWpBXQkV0Qvurn2pt7kN1YtOlCrSzQ1+FrDtl LSIn32DbAySV6DZcf7p/dWardp3ESWQ1q4vp0HZj47NyaWxVf74ovWBQraQPJ26HB87A gFfkmFYi4XkiI6gzra3Ohgl6Ww1Nz6n4aGE3K2NyoCgupcEF2T5paTw7kdnpuBw8KDEa ScvDy14jVnuxXYQ6hdIaCFx5y012XRlyiMaHr4Ae83db6aJIiLD250EptDadFNspIdvR 1B1EPvnXuN5XRH4WuUuFHLaLEoPlBF7qVw8//lcA0rcb2Cph4hG8iNzwM+HEpriSXMdr iwmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXquo3RW6TO9GsgaDZ7Ekh9QC+sQ6sKMF/5qakbmuY7lccdRvco Hr2NgJaLzFex+gIeDkC0Rto6wAqD4AUZUArSoYg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUA91caWxEc6Yd3xJXbniNcaSL9u/gDSaHYRGfLtva1cNHTELby9u7qQYYF53AAg0ApXDyvTztKpof65NTi5U=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:58c5:: with SMTP id s5mr22447155oth.153.1558500298684; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR05MB48219486CC62D9DAD4F613DEBE570@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB48215C3ED0EC73CEBCBC9DE3BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB48215C3ED0EC73CEBCBC9DE3BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 14:44:47 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yVA77PZDe7JzYQ8Sfqvd_Pxtx8kAtvHWxm6H3kZnkyiw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00
To: Rajesh M <mrajesh=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "cfilsfil@cisco.com" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "zali@cisco.com" <zali@cisco.com>, "naikumar@cisco.com" <naikumar@cisco.com>, "cpignata@cisco.com" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "rgandhi@cisco.com" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, "fbrockne@cisco.com" <fbrockne@cisco.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000af7c0f058972a029"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JYFBU1aiiZ2C8LN9s-XPiEHtIrQ>
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: Wed, 22 May 2019 04:45:02 -0000

EH insertion is not compliant with RFC8200. Equipment doing so cannot claim
compliance with RFC8200.

On Wed., 22 May 2019, 11:08 Rajesh M, <mrajesh=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:

> Guys in this draft I see that all the example such as ping, traceroute to
> ipv6 address-> use SRH insertion rather than SRH encapsulation.
>
> This is intentionally done to reduce the packet size   (since underlying
> data can be only ipv6) ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Internal
>
> *From:* Rajesh M
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:06 PM
> *To:* cfilsfil@cisco.com; zali@cisco.com; naikumar@cisco.com;
> cpignata@cisco.com; rgandhi@cisco.com; fbrockne@cisco.com
> *Cc:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; ipv6@ietf.org; Ron Bonica <
> rbonica@juniper.net>
> *Subject:* draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00
>
>
>
> Please find few comments on this draft
>
>
>
>    1. Section 3.1.1 , below must be Ref2
>
>
>
> *Ref1*: Hardware (microcode) just punts the packet. Software (slow path)
>
> implements the required OAM
>
> mechanism. Timestamp is not carried in the packet forwarded to the
>
> next hop.
>
>
>
>    1. 4.1.2.2, here it must be N2 (page 10)
>
>
>
> If the target SID is not locally programmed, *N4* responses with
>
> the ICMPv6 message (Type: "SRv6 OAM (TBA)", Code: "SID not
>
> locally implemented (TBA)"); otherwise a success is returned.
>
>
>
>    1. 4.1.2.2, here it must be B:4:C52 (page 11)
>
> The ICMPv6 process at node N4
>
> checks if its local SID (*B:2:C31*) is locally programmed or not
>
> and responds to the ICMPv6 Echo Request.
>
>
>
>    1. 4.3.2.2, here it must be B:4:C52 (page 16)
>
> The traceroute process at
>
> node N4 checks if its local SID (*B:2:C31*) is locally
>
> programmed.
>
>
>
> 5)  in below two cases is it B5:: or it must be A:5:: ?
>
> > ping A:5:: via segment-list B:2:C31, B:4:C52
>
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to *B5::,* timeout is 2 seconds:
>
> !!!!!
>
>
>
> > traceroute A:5:: via segment-list B:2:C31, B:4:C52
>
> Tracing the route to *B5::*
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Rajesh
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Internal
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>