Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@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 67CF63A0DB3; Fri, 29 May 2020 09:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, 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 WVTOFgjkqexh; Fri, 29 May 2020 09:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 CFEEA3A0CBB; Fri, 29 May 2020 09:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id o5so5920iow.8; Fri, 29 May 2020 09:43:59 -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=/ESbY2CatU43VM71sJ2ne+tVjI6GS7i4QXfMWQsTNT4=; b=QD8ZmJRtuci756Et/ojgWVgriRYYlzqZ4n3mEIpOq0lYkgTh2tRalQ/WtlsMT8fl3S jB7GvWOPjGNgSsxcgqvjWpkMUvCcSDsY8UN3VLW4hddSfoCMFPfdVETAiksgFbij3NTp lhZKkwCg4wRz4aNC+JOVpWPR4BSJNdylMw4FdfPVAPD/ByuxtY3Lf5NhXp5TVy0N7qrZ uBHnGEMLh2p3z3R1l7c3mZyAfs4Sc3sUN5LtuUX3BAPtjCZGD/8lmZBzbNS5DswDVLyg oZFBGQJNb0LUkewK9wf8kkzGl4f2rZ+cSWubRwbP0qtk2HWxtQcYcrRfCr2GvFfu8i+v YI0A==
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=/ESbY2CatU43VM71sJ2ne+tVjI6GS7i4QXfMWQsTNT4=; b=P+Puo1vXiHL/l+6rWNG/WKE1IeyigMT3+Y+L0QJ8JEPgTA4CawwuKfAetVtT+d8zlu Fq4BesfeSWzKpC0p2CKDT/q8Th/ib6/rWYsdgPlseKMr/cXslJwWdvOykEdM+OTTShGi Zq/PDFWngINV5sPrWOlIc2+rRcRVgm9AHEmv9tJgi1oPoAXX+wneemss4VlTjqhAM4Aj T4OGBhf+8py/mhi40LmtUdqcrzyZNppsLaFIfA8S2S178aZPncuAWUzbT3oGgeFPkrUS m9MFqBibZA+q+hQpkw7x+fiaV66BFEI6nmjrNbNxbpT8pwrXHnuXB/EvXRWPFy6bqO/n zt1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zWcJBGqyMjfZxT0NYlZopxW4ay68ds8ulIZTdxKGZDyaU0qvu UeH4sa4d1RPiM8XX0K7wQbSMbEQ+f9enH1j3vNM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxEqV6CtDAH/5Dvy75uxsEgWDhBSMIRYcoX7phgfsujzNufMCHD5qPJpVTsWcqkxry6B35nvhXHWIhEg1sKwSs=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9ac6:: with SMTP id x6mr7339541ion.191.1590770639103; Fri, 29 May 2020 09:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9CF68CCE-B584-4648-84DA-F2DBEA94622D@cisco.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2C1AE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB6348A22A123AFA7E7345087BAEB70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB457041A967A6BBDA1C7EF0FDC1B70@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <93a31c7f-a102-da59-d9a8-2585cd8e3c65@gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB4570B197EE00C5385DAEE138C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <5F062FA6-9E2D-46BB-A3D6-257D374D8F92@gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB4570485EEDBADEF3B193BB82C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ec63e90e-19fa-cd6c-eacb-4dee44815c99@joelhalpern.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FB2397D4B28A42626802C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3bbb28c8-0106-ad63-abf9-c9dc4e428e0c@joelhalpern.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FD37ED32519C677F5E59C1B20@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB63486B842CD9DF5BE57FC1A5AEB30@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB45706D51FBE6CD63B58CDF15C1B30@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB634848BE997686F212FF9E49AEB30@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB457006B3ECAF2E812CD2E721C18E0@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB6348E2C1D2144B3D1724E141AE8E0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB6348E2C1D2144B3D1724E141AE8E0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 09:42:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hOO+oNMgpNWjWxn2xk9yTf7YFSx31rQmzUv6PnM_vyP=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dceabd05a6cc26b4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/hmCQfh0LDIT1blqi01xfNo8VVB4>
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, 29 May 2020 16:44:03 -0000

I can beat that ;-) AFAIR, my first job in IBM in the 80s was to remove
loose source routing code from token ring bridges since it was causing
operationally too many problems ...

-- tony

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:13 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Ketan,
>
>
>
> Neither of these forwarding methods are unique to SR.. In Section 3.1 of
> RFC 791, you will see that IPv4 had a Strict Source Route Option and a
> Loose Source Route Option. These predate SR by roughly twenty-five years.
>
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:46 AM
> *To:* Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; Joel M. Halpern <
> jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> *Cc:* rtg-ads@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of
> CR in CRH
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>
> Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to
> me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e.
> a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only supports prefix and
> adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two "forwarding methods".
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22#section-4
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22*section-4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WUUoiYhNiQq44bqITjU9p16KKdON00tbtfOIgQoDmKHLycmNLLtVobJe9BtxN6V1$>
>
>
>
>    o  Forward the packet to the next-hop along the least-cost path to *>>>
> Prefix SID*
>
>       the next segment endpoint.
>
>
>
>    o  Forward the packet through a specified interface to the next *>>>
> Adjacency SID*
>
>       segment endpoint.
>
>
>
> Given the use of mapping IDs and mapping FIB, the proposal is comparable
> more to SR-MPLS than SRv6. It is better to do a holistic analysis of any
> proposal such as CRH that is introducing an MPLS label like mapping
> construct into IPv6 architecture - doing so should be considered as a
> significant change to IPv6.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
>
> Sent: 25 May 2020 21:14
>
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>; Joel M. Halpern <
> jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>
> Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
>
> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR
> in CRH
>
>
>
> Ketan,
>
>
>
> It would not be fair to say that these operators  "wish to deploy a
> Traffic Engineering solution using a subset of Segment Routing".
>
>
>
> It would be fair to say that these operators  "wish to deploy IPv6 Traffic
> Engineering".  Some of these operators don't care about SR. Some are
> actively averse to SRv6. All they want is a Routing header.
>
>
>
>                                                                  Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 5:21 AM
>
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
> >
>
> Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
>
> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR
> in CRH
>
>
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>
> Thanks for that clarification.
>
>
>
> I note that you are not anymore saying "Are not interested in SR" like you
> had mentioned before the WG adoption call :
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$>
>
>
>
> So, would it be fair to say that the operator that you are referring to
> below, wishes to deploy a Traffic Engineering solution using a subset of
> Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only
> supports prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two "forwarding
> methods" that are referred to in draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
>
> Sent: 25 May 2020 09:03
>
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>; Joel M. Halpern <
> jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>
> Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
>
> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR
> in CRH
>
>
>
> Ketan,
>
>
>
> Please consider an operator who:
>
>
>
> - Wants a way to steer IPv6 packets through a specified path that includes
> many nodes (>8)
>
> - Does not want any of the following:
>
>         - A new VPN encapsulation technique
>
>         - A new service function chaining technique
>
>         - Network programming
>
>         - MPLS and uSID
>
>         - To encoding instructions in IPv6 addresses.
>
>
>
> These operators want a compact routing header, nothing more.
>
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:42 AM
>
> To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>
> Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
>
> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR
> in CRH
>
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
>
> I am looking for explanation of the "other ways" that CRH can be used
> (i.e. those outside the Spring architecture). I am trying to understand
> from the authors what would be the applicability of that solution, it's
> use-cases and it's requirements. That is what, I believe, will help us
> evaluate the CRH proposal in the context of this working call. That will
> help us answer these questions like the scope of the SID, 32-bit or 16-bit
> or something else and what the CRH-FIB is going to turn out like.
>
>
>
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>