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

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Tue, 05 November 2019 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 B7C971208C8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cTeUA59DtADu for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 4446312010C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 58E34FC80A001E9C76A3; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:51:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fraeml719-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.15) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:51:36 +0000
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml719-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:51:36 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:51:36 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01
Thread-Topic: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01
Thread-Index: AQHVkNp4lntIpnxf4kuAhrai4Am3bKd2hiQAgAAC24CAAAVMgIAF3Qjg
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:51:36 +0000
Message-ID: <2f251f99105749488ec0e1be4d5134fe@huawei.com>
References: <CALx6S35298CHBJsSs3LGY_0Pp2_eW-dQFCbQ6SLQneoQ5U=_yQ@mail.gmail.com> <FE11E326-43C2-409C-864E-62AD8B893050@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <FE11E326-43C2-409C-864E-62AD8B893050@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.204.62.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ki6GsTKKPL8T2rJrOoL5E1ptUmo>
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 10:51:43 -0000

Dear Tom, Ole,
Thank you for your feedback.
Agree, it is better to be general and avoid any definitive conclusion about HBH, DestOpt and SRH TLV.
I will update that paragraph accordingly and will publish a new revision soon.

Regards,

Giuseppe


-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 7:16 PM
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>;
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01



> On 1 Nov 2019, at 18:57, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>; wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:46 AM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>; wrote:
>> 
>> DestOpt => measurement only  by node in DA HBH => every router on the 
>> path with feature enabled SRH TLV => every node along the SR path 
>> DestOpt + SRH => every node along the SR path
>> 
> Ole,
> 
> So the last two have identical effects, hence we've introduced the 
> complexity or redundant protocol mechanisms.

Yes, that should guide us in making choices here. 

Ole


> 
> Tom
> 
>> Cheers
>> Ole
>> 
>>>> On 1 Nov 2019, at 18:33, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>; wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>>> From the draft: "Regarding Hop-By-Hop Options Header, if we 
>>>> consider
>>> its real deployment, it is sometimes dropped by legacy devices and 
>>> not so used by intermediate nodes.  Destination Options Header is 
>>> preferred."
>>> 
>>> I don't think this is helpful guidance. First of all, it's not just 
>>> Hop-by-Hop options that can be dropped, it's pretty much packets 
>>> with any extension heades or atypical protocols that might be 
>>> dropped by legacy devices-- including packets with Destination 
>>> Options or Routing Headers. Neither does it make sense that 
>>> Destination Options Header is preferred, as correctly stated in the 
>>> previous paragraph DO and HBH address difference use cases (i.e. DO 
>>> is end to end, and HBH is per hop). Saying that DO is preferred is 
>>> equivalent to saying that end-to-end performance measurements are 
>>> preferred which I doubt is the intent. IMO, this whole paragraph 
>>> could be removed without loss of content.
>>> 
>>> "SRH TLV can also be a good choice from this point of view.  The 
>>> intermediated nodes that are not in the SID list can consider the 
>>> SRH as a green field, they cannot support and bypass or support and 
>>> dig into the SRH TLV."
>>> 
>>> I disagree with the conclusion that SRH TLV is a good choice. The 
>>> implicit assumption in this paragraph is that somehow SRH EH is less 
>>> likely to be dropped by intermediate nodes than other EH like DO and 
>>> HBH. I don't think there's any data to support that. Additionally, 
>>> it's not clear what use case an SRH TLV addresses that can't already 
>>> be addressed by Destination or HBH options.
>>> 
>>> Tom
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative 
>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------