Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Pablo,

Yes, the IETF is not the Protocol Police. Interpol will not issue Red Notices for us. Any company can sell products that deviate from IETF standards, and any customer can buy them.

However, many customers do not wish to buy products that will not interoperate with other products. As the histories of SNA, DECnet, Netware, Banyan Vines, and Appletalk show, proprietary networking solutions only last as long as the vendor's monopoly.

We have a mechanism for documenting proprietary protocols, and it is not the IETF Stream of RFCs.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 13-May-20 03:26, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
>  
> 
> Cisco has demonstrated TILFA with SRH insertion at EANTC-2019. http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/News/2019/EANTC-MPLSSDNNFV2019-WhitePaper-v1.2.pdf
> 
>  
> 
> This feature is available to all customers -supported since XR 6.6.1-.. Please contact your Cisco account team if you want further details on cisco products or need assistance.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Pablo.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* lunes, 11 de mayo de 2020 22:04
> *To:* Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[e-mail]>; Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Pablo,
> 
>  
> 
> While I fully realize that running code is not mandatory in the IETF – there have been numerous assertions about what is harmful and not harmful etc, and coupled with the deployment draft, I presume there is running code from the perspective of the authors..
> 
>  
> 
> Would you be prepared to disclose the release of code where SRH and this functionality is actually implemented – since I’d like to run a series of verification tests against it to test the effects on my network and I’m sure others would be interested in doing the same.  I can also then test against the Juniper implementation as tested at the EANTC and run my own inter-op tests and test the real effects this has on the network in a manner that makes sense.
> 
>  
> 
> Obviously however testing against a single vendor code is not ideal – and since the assertions are being made and in light of the deployment draft – I am figuring that you must actually have running code that is in the field? (I know on all code versions I have tested that are GA I have yet to see any SRH on any packet capture that I have done – hence I have been unable to do any verification testing myself against the claims made)
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Andrew
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From: *ipv6 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril=[e-mail] <mailto:pcamaril=[e-mail]>>
> *Date: *Monday, 11 May 2020 at 20:13
> *To: *Gyan Mishra <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject: *RE: Header Insertion and TI-FA
> 
>  
> 
> Gyan,
> 
>  
> 
> SRH insertion is NOT part of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15.
> 
> (SRH insertion is documented in draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion-02 with a normative reference to draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08).
> 
>  
> 
>> Spring - Please provide section within PGM that has the verbiage of the 6in6 encapsulation
> 
>  
> 
> This is already in the net-pgm draft (since rev 00). Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15#section-5 .
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pablo.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*ipv6 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* lunes, 11 de mayo de 2020 18:02
> *To:* Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail] <mailto:rbonica=[e-mail]>>; 6man <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject:* Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Krzysztof
> 
>  
> 
> So you agree with what I stated as the workaround.
> 
>  
> 
> Please read through exactly what I stated as the complete workaround.
> 
>  
> 
> If we are all in agreement with the prepend (6in6) encap) workaround can we have the PGM draft updated to reflect.
> 
>  
> 
> All
> 
>  
> 
> With regards to the 6MAN appeal,  the issues were PSP and this issue with TI-LFA from what I recall.
> 
>   
> 
> Was their any other issue outside of these two mentioned in the appeal that we need to address and come up with a workaround?
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you
> 
>  
> 
> Gyan
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:09 AM Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Robert,
> 
>     If we have prepend, why bother with insertion at all? Prepend (6in6 encap) is much cleaner, IMHO.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Krzysztof
> 
>     > On 2020 -May-11, at 16:38, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     > 
>     > Hi Ron,
>     > 
>     > > normalizing header insertion for the special case where the PLR is a segment endpoint 
>     > 
>     > When an operator is serious about good data plane protection with TI-LFA all nodes in the network will be enabled for SR. The less overhead required for the protection the better. You may just not have a room for adding additional 40 bytes to each packet at each potential PLR without fragmentation.
>     > 
>     > Regarding all of your other TI-LFA related questions - I am sure Krzysztof will be happy to answer them for you internally :)  After all this is what your public demo was all about ....
>     > 
>     > Best,
>     > Robert,
>     > 
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -- 
> 
> Gyan  Mishra
> 
> Network Engineering & Technology 
> 
> Verizon 
> 
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
> 
> Phone: [phone]
> 
> Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>