Re: IPv4 EH proposal
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 09 September 2019 11:07 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 8ED3312010D; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 04:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 eWa6p3bIw_ZO; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 04:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 409851200D6; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 04:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x89B7kYr002861; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:07:46 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 54A0E2055D3; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:07:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D70C205581; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:07:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x89B7kVx009735; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:07:46 +0200
Subject: Re: IPv4 EH proposal
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB5463153B47BFE83350C566E7AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ERm4x072JQZQovX0MVcea3=0DOCSESopAXj_SE1vMi8qkQ@mail.gmail.com> <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DFAE9362F9@dggemm529-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAO42Z2y-hq71wr9ogzmn2=rO0xySy63iXhNXrFDuqO7r5Pwa7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMFN5pbaVePWrJA61jd7f9d_2bU-Nu9oppFDsAc_B7APDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2x4-9-1YseuyqnCRh7c+J-zb2ksGXpk_Hs17H5uLz4Hvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHHMdGm6Qea4E1ugQBrSYFr7e-FgP+pxoErhEwRR9GwKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f488b269-24db-ab3a-def7-158f6d74ca8c@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 13:07:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHHMdGm6Qea4E1ugQBrSYFr7e-FgP+pxoErhEwRR9GwKw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FA37A3183D336D5772491A01"
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PYTx__toUrMPkA7fbyQtIvxwU90>
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:07:51 -0000
Le 07/09/2019 à 13:32, Robert Raszuk a écrit : > /* Adjusting the subject to reflect the topic */ > > Ok ... I looked at the new wave of mails in wrong order :) > > I like this proposal: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-01 > > And have absolutely nothing against progressing it further - it looks > on the surface to be more efficient then sr-mpls over IP - but how > many bits are we saving needs to be calculated to state if cost of > introducing new encoding justifies the additional control plane, > protocol and platform efforts > > In fact if we would get to the consensus of using SRH with SID & BSID > to be of fixed 20 bits it can reuse a lot of mechanism build for > sr-mpls in any commercial router. > > It is just a bit amazing that insertion of EHs into IPv4 would be > less problematic that in the case of IPv6 :) Maybe due to allowed > fragmentation. > > As to the host dropping packets due to unknown protocol - let's > observe that SR domain would clean such EH before passing packets > further. > > Many thx, > R. When I learned IPv4 existed it was already very late to suggest anything to it. I learned that many things were designed into it at its origin, but few things got actually deployed. The example of loose source route, and strict source route, was given as an example that people tried to do but it never worked at scale. So it got filtered and disappeared. I think now that any new such thing added beyond the simplest things in IP, like just destination and source, will be discarded later. (even for IPv6, I struggle with Traffic Class vs Flow Label: where to put an emergency flag? were it there to be just one field instead of two, my choice would be much easier. The end user of this emergency flag asks this for 2 years now, and I still ponder over it, telling him to not worry and just send twice the emergency message.) Alex > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 1:14 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com > <mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:56, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net > <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote: > > > > > It's tempting to write up SR over IPv4 > > > > You don't have to write anything ... it is already written and > looks like moving fwd :) > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-07 > > > > That's tunnelling MPLS over SR over IPv4. I'm talking about native SR > over IPv4 e.g. "SRv4". > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Ron Bonica
- Re: Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Tarek Saad
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Tarek Saad
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Huzhibo
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Mark Smith
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Huzhibo
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Huzhibo
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Mark Smith
- IPv4 EH proposal Robert Raszuk
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Lee Howard
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Xiejingrong
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Tom Herbert
- Re: Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Gyan Mishra
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Bob Hinden
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Bob Hinden
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Tom Herbert
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Ron Bonica
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ - … Joel M. Halpern
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Xiejingrong
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Alexandre Petrescu
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Robert Raszuk
- RE: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ - … Ron Bonica
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Fernando Gont
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Tom Herbert
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Fred Baker
- Re: IPv4 EH proposal Tom Herbert