Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Sat, 07 December 2019 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 BA24D12010F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:44:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 LkPPVCjnD9Pp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53A381200C4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.10.190] (246.51-175-81.customer.lyse.net [51.175.81.246]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BB504E11B2F; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:44:27 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-079C11D7-E2C8-42A5-A328-5F5489D0D993"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 03:44:25 +0100
Message-Id: <10E890EA-3278-44EE-881E-EBC91D419587@employees.org>
References: <CALx6S3588ja9AZzBQ0dqwx0j-ki6A5tusye+odQKPyAyF+hEww@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S3588ja9AZzBQ0dqwx0j-ki6A5tusye+odQKPyAyF+hEww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C5046a)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lMZbiALY4U-Dv8JpK8BoGh9sGec>
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: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 02:44:30 -0000

Tom,

And you are familiar with the TILFA work for SR?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01

Cheers 
Ole


> On 7 Dec 2019, at 03:17, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 4:02 PM <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) Besides the technical arguments against EH insertion (which have been
>>> codified in draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful, I have
>>> asked *lots* of times what's the technical motivation for doing EH
>>> insertion. It boils down to "to save 40 bytes", which doesn't seem to me
>>> as a compelling argument to violate the spec -- even less in a design
>>> that employs 128-bit waypoints and is claimed to be operated in a
>>> limited domain.
>> 
>> You seem to be wrong. You must have missed the 6man header insertion session in Singapore.
>> 
>> Can you please watch:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJU0m1EhjaI
>> Starting at 26:20. Particularly 33:20. TILFA
>> 
> Ole,
> 
> I've watched the video. I don't see how #3 was addressed. I refer you
> to 44:06 when Joel explicitly asked why header insertion is required.
> Darren's answer was essentially that they want to have options and
> that regardless of any discussion it's going to happen. No technical
> explanation has been offered why extension header insertion is needed,
> nor has any explanation been offered as to why the alternative of
> encapsulation is insufficient to solve the problem. To quote Joel's
> response: "The answer is you want it, that's not a good answer.''
> 
> Tom
> 
>> Ole
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------