IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Who is the design ultimate authority over IPv6? (Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming)

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Sun, 08 March 2020 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@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 8C8C13A0C95 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 09:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 4fFd3HAfqfmA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 09:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc29.google.com (mail-yw1-xc29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c29]) (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 D261C3A0C94 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 09:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc29.google.com with SMTP id i1so3348358ywf.4 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 09:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=AdwiPO4ZDvHlFcR5JhgQIXev++FR4gk3J5Sj+H5ayII=; b=KPQdjJSy4cb3FLuJGroRb/OQ+d5kpGIqOztZbCWikeq9gGTT/s0ywPIBVYJsL8t0+B JN1ZIsJemd1wXSd+CVe1kXLV02tG9QRyG6su6pKB+f5qkV1dPNWMsTKPdTRZN7yjXXl9 1CyzfEiHW7/CSvsC8+qfghcg8ATWN/pf61npprjiUDusYAaS2pOcssDOrkdfe+7jiJfB P/DFbFrG3bVqzs3p3ZlwmXFuove7hvB41wSXm5XnsWuwldO7F+COxWGIOsdT+RHdchBw umRVaZjzAXoaBUWg9/wK4HLWe0Zoaey7cR+pCrw9BwqxMXmRTZjugAKTBR3bzWAnlq2o i6Og==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=AdwiPO4ZDvHlFcR5JhgQIXev++FR4gk3J5Sj+H5ayII=; b=dkt8FwzwL8XwDxAKcNxW/5NBALBplV5IsjQhnS59TEZMpqEL3YSv49ewQ5iKfu9JIB VXWc0ymdDYGLT6NcRU6X7z3GAIFe7XIoRoM1L/SgPDgCT6xjGbH1NcfjjY0uOxaAlh2s EYxKJtXYsZkn0whQBYWB0SZcMjxW/hVdzjmed7GAWI0HymvYpw3LuVa3v7Xuat3XogvQ 7fL8pQTrnkon9PjNt/jJ0PuPrwDOKHsMc48XApeuT8w+7wYrE07wqZSF89WZl8TmP7v8 IqGQDJjFKs/BSgW9upFJcha8oA9NdUZ27W6hb+5OFvuCOadYNsvbxLSW4M8vJoPV6YH5 /Wtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2BfU43LHnrq0/UzvaPy5Tr3AcjYKYWCIFRqfuPb43YlZ4Msf17 86GxYSyQELLgmqubQuG45gA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvHi8P/a+tV25sAgftby4bRqk5Cx/NWpMOd9EZ5JM3j5YLfNu0rLqcb7c282X5FlHqvFjkecQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6882:: with SMTP id d124mr13645734ybc.434.1583684056734; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 09:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.20] (45-19-110-76.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net. [45.19.110.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i79sm5275539ywc.110.2020.03.08.09.14.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Mar 2020 09:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <F6D12970-57D0-438D-A525-382F3275B6A4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FF17CADD-CC33-4C0E-A85E-78E8D7505DB0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
Subject: Re: Who is the design ultimate authority over IPv6? (Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 12:14:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <724735ae-61ee-6e66-376d-4c769ea8b942@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <29345_1576001884_5DEFE15C_29345_229_5_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D250B7@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup><89402a30-129b-314f-90f1-ba6efcdd6a88@si6networks.com> <16536_1576089460_5DF13774_16536_366_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D273AD@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAO42Z2z2s92yitCC0eLrNO3dXe_EarRSUZq8GmJ=QRdZ59d0ag@mail.gmail.com> <64E8151B-DF45-4F30-A4AD-673E37A482DD@employees.org> <738133cf-1b87-90b3-614f-470b5546eedf@gmail.com> <CALx6S35=NWNu9iV7FU=zhmOwjB5T_WswyS13skpqfDfvL=G_jQ@mail.gmail.com> <1ea7ab65-7a07-5c78-aac7-bf202051a43a@gmail.com> <d1f32cb2-9f43-46cb-8585-319726e750b9@joelhalpern.com> <CAO42Z2wvCuj4YxBhmBAeh2yZdxi8uYy45o5gQNyEbHVGqu+_Eg@mail.gmail.com> <03a72a64-f7b7-e21a-b4b1-904fdec46203@joelhalpern.com> <CAO42Z2yY=KRbNjHwEofyGEFEYKcz0bEg73mjG=+c+RyRF8JRPw@mail.gmail.com> <724735ae-61ee-6e66-376d-4c769ea8b942@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fTGrvUG10P7qqxYQ21VLdgRp3fw>
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: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 16:14:20 -0000

Hi Brian,

> On Mar 6, 2020, at 10:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 07-Mar-20 16:04, Mark Smith wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>> 
>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 at 13:30, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mark, it has been approved by the IESG for publication.  We had a WG
>>> last call.  An IETF last call.  An IESG review.  It is in the RFC EDitor
>>> queue for publication.
>> 
>> Ok, I've missed that.
>> 
>> While we could theoretically call it back, there
>>> would have to be an overwhelming reason.
>>> 
>> 
>> It only occurred to me yesterday that SRH/SRv6 might also be violating
>> RFC 4291, as it seems that when SIDs are transformed into IPv6
>> addresses, those IPv6 addresses aren't assigned to interfaces but
>> rather nodes:
>> 
>> RFC 4291:
>> 
>> "2.1.  Addressing Model
>> 
>> IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes.
>>   An IPv6 unicast address refers to a single interface.  Since each
>>   interface belongs to a single node, any of that node's interfaces'
>>   unicast addresses may be used as an identifier for the node."
>> 
>> 
>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26:
>> 
>> "4.3.  SR Segment Endpoint Node
>> 
>> When an SRv6-capable node receives an IPv6 packet, it performs a
>>   longest-prefix-match lookup on the packets destination address.  This
>>   lookup can return any of the following:
>> 
>>       * A FIB entry that represents a locally instantiated SRv6 SID
> 
> I'll bet you a beer next time I'm in Melbourne that the implemenations
> all assign such SIDs to the loopback interface. What else can "locally
> instantiated" mean in any vaguely Unix-like O/S?
> 
> What makes me feel upset is using an IPv6-address-shaped object to
> convey semantics rather than location, but as Joel said this went right
> through the process and for reasons that I don't know has been in
> AUTH48 for 134 days.

It has not :-). You are reading the total time it has been in the queue since approval by the IESG.
It has been in AUTH48 for all of 4 days (since March 4).

https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8754 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8754>

Thanks
Suresh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email