RE: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

[Rajesh M <[e-mail]>]

Agreed (cannot claim compliance with RFC8200). Authors please comment

Guys in this draft I see that all the example such as ping, traceroute to ipv6 address-> use SRH insertion rather than SRH encapsulation.
This is intentionally done to reduce the packet size   (since underlying data can be only ipv6) ?



From: Mark Smith <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:15 AM
To: Rajesh M <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; SPRING WG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

EH insertion is not compliant with RFC8200. Equipment doing so cannot claim compliance with RFC8200.

On Wed., 22 May 2019, 11:08 Rajesh M, <mrajesh=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Guys in this draft I see that all the example such as ping, traceroute to ipv6 address-> use SRH insertion rather than SRH encapsulation.
This is intentionally done to reduce the packet size   (since underlying data can be only ipv6) ?



Juniper Internal


Juniper Internal
From: Rajesh M
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:06 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: SPRING WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

Please find few comments on this draft


  1.  Section 3.1.1 , below must be Ref2

Ref1: Hardware (microcode) just punts the packet. Software (slow path)
implements the required OAM
mechanism. Timestamp is not carried in the packet forwarded to the
next hop.


  1.  4.1.2.2, here it must be N2 (page 10)

If the target SID is not locally programmed, N4 responses with
the ICMPv6 message (Type: "SRv6 OAM (TBA)", Code: "SID not
locally implemented (TBA)"); otherwise a success is returned.


  1.  4.1.2.2, here it must be B:4:C52 (page 11)
The ICMPv6 process at node N4
checks if its local SID (B:2:C31) is locally programmed or not
and responds to the ICMPv6 Echo Request.


  1.  4.3.2.2, here it must be B:4:C52 (page 16)
The traceroute process at
node N4 checks if its local SID (B:2:C31) is locally
programmed.

5)  in below two cases is it B5:: or it must be A:5:: ?
> ping A:5:: via segment-list B:2:C31, B:4:C52
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to B5::, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!

> traceroute A:5:: via segment-list B:2:C31, B:4:C52
Tracing the route to B5::

Thanks
Rajesh



Juniper Internal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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=ijfTaKShbusYK-FOvFGH9IZ538TctoQw-Pljslc0qGA&m=jrfq1dYsfk8_fBqqNNS-gdRsYxNXOt7r52G3GHN0iiQ&s=7EDIKybjxRS2y7WsSXf02B7k15AZOccvbTWWcMu0OYo&e=>
--------------------------------------------------------------------