IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 26 May 2020 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 B21DA3A1011; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 YWW5vcuh--Hg; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (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 CC47D3A100D; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC174C; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:46:01 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:in-reply-to:references:message-id:date:date:subject :subject:mime-version:from:from:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1590504359; bh=fnzcDrVafJl8e3R5LnVbaRRDikxjzQtlpnZOmTsKLwk=; b=f aUcZe7l4rrydKWq6EeqhXN73RHQr9ZQrdUgiU3JKulDDRZQ2XGcchhczSZKlE87t zozcTf4KtonY8Y+TsYyA+fFNXstFKFghr+AE7FoKDG1KgWh4Lwc7RYKY0SfpHzb+ yUUDJdfn8DwVGchRALikYUz9GdHxZO8+FagqMWKhFg=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 6Zl6GcYNRwmy; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:45:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:4047:9a1c:3280:98fe] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:4047:9a1c:3280:98fe]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4923249; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:45:59 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:45:57 +0200
Message-Id: <DA99566C-9914-42DF-B15D-6964D5044EB7@steffann.nl>
References: <D46E924A-9D84-4616-BE51-7FBB7FBADAFA@nokia.com>
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <D46E924A-9D84-4616-BE51-7FBB7FBADAFA@nokia.com>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E262)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Nhq-yOg_VK3YhS1vBIWBKu5Gu64>
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, 26 May 2020 14:46:23 -0000

Hi Wim,

> It does work across domains that are not directly connected, but that scenario is not well described I have to admit. The operation is as I said very similar to CRH. 
> Think of the MPLS tag as the same as the SID tag in CRH. From a data-plane all packets on the wire will use v6 addresses, so inter-domain is possible.
> 
> This is no longer MPLS as people know it. Think of it as a tag that performs a steering function as you have in mind with CRH.

How would I get the MPLS tags over the IPv6 internet? All I can imagine is another layer of point to point tunneling...

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email