comments on draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-05
Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Mon, 24 February 2020 15:34 UTC
Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 57B773A0D4E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:34:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 k3MXTfWGdMHL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E10163A0D59 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:34:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 690B440CA4D499CF960E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:34:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:34:29 +0000
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 16:34:28 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 16:34:28 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: comments on draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-05
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-05
Thread-Index: AdXrJ5vt86PceZqPS1aBKk3ni7OjfA==
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:34:28 +0000
Message-ID: <3e5e773d2c0b4c9c93e33484abbb6c38@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.204.62.186]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3e5e773d2c0b4c9c93e33484abbb6c38huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ltby1w7xg3PjSW4Ctts7sfspJko>
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: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:34:32 -0000
Dear Bob, Tom and All, I would like to summarize the outcome of the discussion. Our intention is to work on a new version of the draft and highlight that HBH and DOH are the main alternatives to apply the Alternate Marking Method to IPv6. We can just mention that, in addition to HBH and DOH, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header suggests the possibility of SRH TLV that could also carry the AltMark data fields in case of SRv6 application, but the usage of SRH TLV is still under discussion within the community and so it is not the preferred solution. HBH and DOH can be considered the most suitable ways to implement Alternate Marking. The new revision will address all the comments from Bob as well. Please let us know if you agree, so I will work on the new version of the draft. Regards, Giuseppe
- comments on draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-05 Giuseppe Fioccola