Re: Question about SRv6 Insert function

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:58 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Cameron,
>
>
>
> I hear you. SRv6+ will try to limit its ask to the following:
>
>
>
>    - Enough community review to make sure that we aren’t doing anything
>    dangerous
>    - Four code points (i.e., two IPv6 Routing types and two IPv6 options)
>    - One registry (i.e., Special purpose SIDs)
>
>
>
> Beyond that, we will try to keep the noise to a minimum.
>
>
>

Congrats.

Behcet

>                                           Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2019 1:10 PM
> *To:* Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 6man@ietf.org; Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>; Ron Bonica <
> rbonica@juniper.net>; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>;
> draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <
> draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: Question about SRv6 Insert function
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:07 AM Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Fernando,
>
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2019, at 10:09 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 30/8/19 20:24, Ron Bonica wrote:
>
> Li,
>
>
>
> In the scenarios that you mention, below, SRv6 nodes have the following
> options:
>
>
>
> 1. To prepend and IPv6 header, with its own SRH
> 2. To insert an SRH, as described below
>
>
>
> Option 1 is in keeping with the word and spirit of RFC 8200. As you
> point out, Option 2 contradicts RFC 8200.
>
>
>
> So, we should probably explore the motivation for Option 2). If the
> motivation is not sufficient, we should probably standardize on Option 1.
>
>
> My argument would be:
> Folks would do whatever they please with 1). If somehow they feel the
> need to do 2), they should *refrain from even suggesting it*, post an
> internet draft that proposes to update RFC8200 to allow for the
> insertion of EHs, wait for that to be adopted and published, and only
> then suggest to do EH insertion.
>
>
>
> I have put down my thoughts on the future of header insertion work in a
> mail to the 6man list in May 2017. The mail can be found below
>
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4MevopH9_iQglUizhoT5Rl-TjRc
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_ipv6_4MevopH9-5FiQglUizhoT5Rl-2DTjRc&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=d-vzMZODP_ALHfMhubf5WRxJTGOhRzUKJbOtu85Dffk&s=fbmh6fqc8mAnydHmPoIhor-HPFSjlsvhAIwCflKUbSk&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P.S.: Given the amount of discussion there has been on this topic in the
> context of RFC8200, I'd like to hope that there's no draft-ietf document
> suggesting EH-insertion or, if there is, the relevant ADs and chairs
> make sure that's not the case anymore.
>
>
>
> Yes. If a draft violates RFC8200 and it hits the IESG for evaluation, I
> will certainly hold a DISCUSS position until the violations are fixed.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Suresh
>
>
>
> Thanks. It sounds to me the the SR folks are re-inventing NSH in ipv6.
>
>
>
> The internet layer is a narrow waist.
>
>
>
> My humble opinion is SR has the same real market traction as  LISP and
> NSH, meaning very niche, but loud.
>
>
>
> They should look at publishing in the experimental track before asking for
> the world.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Cameron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=d-vzMZODP_ALHfMhubf5WRxJTGOhRzUKJbOtu85Dffk&s=CJjpcqScEQwVpIUZyR6cQhyDb5ouN7wH6aIrmCLoIMM&e=>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>