Re: What is necessity for SRH, and other EH, insertion/removal?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 15:07 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 705A712008D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:07:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=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=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 Nli_D2DvatMS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:07:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 77704120088 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:07:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBKF7k0s014971 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:07:46 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F374206E5F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:07:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FC0206E07 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:07:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.44] ([10.11.240.44]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBKF7jbp003428 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:07:46 +0100
Subject: Re: What is necessity for SRH, and other EH, insertion/removal?
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CALx6S34vG=L_5nw_FzxHBUy+7tbWH4dhOh8xodOfKf2oOdrarg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36g6gDJNp=unQJaGoGoMxnRpbqGni=JHvPFJ3ovmuzO4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2ywKVkQU0NWkPE1kS9o=Tw3dCMCivo3xBw96UKtHKdEsg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35EkOZ_mfpCyoiSNheirkUcnWw9Q22EDHBb-b8OLZZZkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bc7b3f30-4a9b-8a2e-69c7-c4dd0d6c3202@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:07:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35EkOZ_mfpCyoiSNheirkUcnWw9Q22EDHBb-b8OLZZZkw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_jdYd_TglaRaUXRiPUtsMwL68OA>
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:07:50 -0000


Le 20/12/2019 à 05:23, Tom Herbert a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:12 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 09:08, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:17 AM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
[...]
> All good points, but I'm not sure that punting problems because their
> hard to L2 is the answer. I could just as easily ask if MPLS was so
> good, then why was segment routing even invented? Clearly there's
> incentive to standardize on IP protocols for carrying end-to-end
> information.

I think an improved mechanism of using IPv6 (and potentially its 
extension headers) to achieve same goals as MPLS achieves would be 
better than currently MPLS-for-IPv4.

Fine engineering trade-offs could be found between too many 
encapsulation headers, packet modification en-route, and limited domains.

One easy thing to do would also for proponents to accept to get rid of IPv4.

There are many other easy things to do.

Alex


  Besides that, things are pretty far down the path for
> sending IOAM over IPv6 and in fact there might even be consensus that
> HBH options are the correct way to do that as opposed to a lot of
> other hacks that have been suggested.
> 
> Tom
> 
>> Regards,
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> * "Inter-Switch Link and IEEE 802.1Q Frame Format",
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/8021q/17056-741-4.html
>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>> Please note, I'm asking for the technical justification of the
>>>> protocol design, saying that it's necessary because it's already being
>>>> deployed isn't useful in this regard.
>>>>
>>>> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>