Re: [spring] Limited domains ...

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 23:24 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 6B0A73A0D9C; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 Nvz5ShAMvdUF; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22e.google.com (mail-oi1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) (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 01A033A0D96; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id i22so23314169oik.10; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:24:22 -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=3MLj6Bvmm2Je1FLNt6DqbtsLm5X2Z2T5b0dVrVY4PuU=; b=JNrGNkDnzIK+sxCTqvpiUYSDsFCKbFG1Mf1ZsdNZ/VQAs7nmvMaP52mfnqkNMMKy6m JIQLPzLuBJ5GsDvoPvL8dNkz/0ZTGSp8ohFMaUpRe+RXx9r9DymPTYHMBI8KDPFFcE0H hSSnP+8TN+hC0N1fjhDR+HunYs9wmcE/NoC2BhhUVQ2ppXht1O153MPF0HGg+VYAQu5r p8JM8I/o88j/7HuE1TFZpRmG0ZQM+ZFGd8flCQBj8E7zYEejDC1MZlMbiFSXGxa1mrj2 uCejwUQ9oTCai05qSYEmxwew/9dIC7wY4BLlxbuX6VTwT7DUqR9eOPe690LmqjqOwFQh VFfA==
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=3MLj6Bvmm2Je1FLNt6DqbtsLm5X2Z2T5b0dVrVY4PuU=; b=Iy3K8AH3GYTTtld9bxBujhwIM/oWLLw+44wO+gNdu1sNUNFWidccV5yF6BUjA45/4U 6JW374w3c08uf1AiBFbKqnDwHolnfLt5YJ/ONNnDVVBfXx8jTM46WtTiwLUM4luFKiB8 55vnRmZcpFV5GDUzDekow0iYqJAYnTv1V8yvnQxRyI8SFq3wIBEqHrKD3FPGh2nHQ+MY ZAIv6OiMH9TKBgqh3FcwxUx/pkNMFqNqoeUPTa44xxD8TUxt1+nmDu6uvYImXeDIY+7F rwz15+n9VLYULCoS3MJfdOXDD6k0k2NkhPPwXn12NcLLcguICF4hocxn7K+4jz7WUaWx a/Dw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533eEdsmoyraWJTCV9IvS3SlWHgInSiZoNokYhlhT5MfVSdO2w+s nIpeaNxVjC6ouk/rECan1QJzXAgKYjD3rvHAYgI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVtyYLLgT5nGQ0eAfRolD/rRTgpWSbQzjJuGofVfwNuPnXCMxWb1QsAF7kV+W//mY3BEk485ughePDPdNO34U=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4405:: with SMTP id k5mr404173oiw.164.1590621862387; Wed, 27 May 2020 16:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D86E8BE339067C5238E4AEB10@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <30C37AC0-B03A-45B1-BE0F-7E185361BBBC@liquidtelecom.com> <CAOj+MME+kkfTKFQaS1zvW7wgQvLqui6jFQH9-eai6eY32t9fmQ@mail.gmail.com> <b8cd530c-e07b-f74f-0f58-43414441b6ef@gmail.com> <1E239000-24BD-4E8A-A0D0-6876CE666137@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMFCYoHD4hdXvVtfWUup3vbPBi5M-=mWUWHsm_d9RXpybg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFCYoHD4hdXvVtfWUup3vbPBi5M-=mWUWHsm_d9RXpybg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 09:24:10 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xgG7kRe4C=3fC7jXyhGi+JjoRDBp_xxFnJZp_87s4zbw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Limited domains ...
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001461fe05a6a983d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RKyoJT_3XO5Ge1GybltISQOCu0Y>
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, 27 May 2020 23:24:25 -0000

On Thu, 28 May 2020, 08:40 Robert Raszuk, <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> /*adjusting subject */
>
> > The scope of CRH is “limited domain” and not the “Internet”.
>


The scope of SR-MPLS is also "limited domain", because, quite obviously,
after 20 years, MPLS isn't yet end-to-end across the Internet, never was
designed to be and never will be.

So SPRING need to declare SR-MPLS deprecated first before the "limited
domain" argument can be attempted to be used against CRH.


> Well that is only what the document under adoption call says.
>
> However we have all seen described use cases over Internet  ... so much of
> limited domain. Explanation given is that "limited domain" does not to be
> continuous ... very clever indeed !
>
> I am observing this point as my use case is also over Internet.
>
> So if I apply any RH on my application host_1 carry it over Internet to my
> server host_2 clearly those two hosts create a "limited domain".
>
> Maybe we should just drop right here this "limited domain"
> restriction/scope for any solution being discussed here ?
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:32 AM Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> The authors of CRH has already have multiple drafts and more CP/ DP
>> changes will be required. E.g., it will require
>>
>>    - ISIS changes (draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions)
>>    - To carry VPN information (draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt)
>>    - For SFC (draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt)
>>    - BGP changes (draft-alston-spring-crh-bgp-signalling,
>>    draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-vpn-srv6-plus)
>>    - PCEP extension (TBA)
>>    - OAM for debugging the mapping table
>>    - Yang interface
>>    - More to come
>>
>>
>>
>> The scope of CRH is “limited domain” and not the “Internet”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given this, where the IETF community discuss how these so-called
>> “building blocks” fits together?
>>
>>
>>
>> If author’s claim is that the home for the architecture work is not
>> Spring, then the authors should create a BoF in routing area to first
>> defined architecture, use-case and requirements.
>>
>> This is the hard worked everyone else did before the CRH authors.
>>
>> Why they are looking for a short cut?
>>
>>
>>
>> CRH is a “major” change and outside the scope of 6man charter.
>>
>> It should follow the proper IETF review process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why CRH authors are trying to “skip the queue” and “skip the routing
>> area”?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards … Zafar
>>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>