IETF Logo Mail Archive

Review of draft-ietf-6man-sids-00

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 30 April 2022 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 0492EC159A3E; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0xcww2tTdpkJ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B50BC1594BA; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id iq2-20020a17090afb4200b001d93cf33ae9so11997685pjb.5; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:subject:to:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=biACDLwDVs+ox5BCQGjTROwu8aW7y8MZzFDOXrI+agw=; b=KoBGfg/mMFWhQRmXEUW0KUI4vTV3LumvI8vx3MRLFlN4t8v9qjM5wmURCW5wtvBvzm rIp1G3CcrqbpsV0D1lAtodnP3W0PBHYGAlQ15ei3545f0A+f0RzXo8S/X9ldYve9RnOc De81Q2Hvmbg5wCV/zLgm8mpaZ48Z8JbHEOdBMmy8bDKDOi9peJouQoMyfLMkpZshQ3VB hk7m2yoeT3DsAoIIGkXdsnkuzlmgo4Tjy2+z6+onubGI+5Opw58Ppm4gU2u5/h+1n2Il ofbQG6dXD+tcNdp55Ewkj641lbwIc3VWzqzVkub00K4g6Kl26+AqUJzyk+1edcx4/L5B n3QQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=biACDLwDVs+ox5BCQGjTROwu8aW7y8MZzFDOXrI+agw=; b=IwdocrJL+TQtYbOFmoQ3NZ85ypgKF4Rs1NBow9kT8REzEZjwI3skQi179WucLtvDdc H+M3AmbVR6ltp8DCOMQ6byZ/Q8Tud7bJOI3AoHUqM4iXmB9TyM2t9sPnCKP0ioa/mh+M VHpQPdxsYTcHFpQR8WbB09aW7FPM4Z36/SwMwcea4MwwAXREJgW5lm7zQgJM6iOHegub Ks3bNY2mEpWJ+ibH8tawCwYs6DJyygmscJBh7hhR/3HfMwHdoIkrL2IMOKzkHddY2XH2 cAABmev75lCZ3h3QgDN9i+SHXzm6NkX9A9qrSeZjwf5Uu0XFBtQzqo9CTCI842GnRaWd LEHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532O2p6chpP97sI3Umd6+4sLG/zukmuu8Wf8s9SRekzkGCvGpZlg ouL058rpTEYXXyMvtbnRhVO3pu6RlZxTwg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDc05L9N2Cfp4hiIhJm/gBbZQ3YxkVl13bJNHCMs+fvY1IKBz8hiXHtXDVD+P/Evaf5WQH3Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e78e:b0:15d:29ba:77fe with SMTP id cp14-20020a170902e78e00b0015d29ba77femr1981127plb.119.1651287903387; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1005:b501:db7:d041:a2d:ce65? ([2406:e003:1005:b501:db7:d041:a2d:ce65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k3-20020a170902c40300b0015e8d4eb1b7sm307984plk.1.2022.04.29.20.05.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-6man-sids-00
To: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-sids@ietf.org
Message-ID: <9981567e-ab85-6042-f23d-20741e9415ec@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:59 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mh0kOPKViKRX6yDIKQyUELWAmV4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 30 Apr 2022 03:05:08 -0000

Hi,

Here's a personal review of draft-ietf-6man-sids-00. In general this is well written and I agree with its goal, but I did find a few points that need attention, and some nits below.

Substantive issues
------------------

>  3. SRv6 SIDs and the IPv6 addressing architecture
...
> It is also fairly clear that the non-SRv6-SID elements that appear in the SRH SID list are simply IPv6 addresses assigned to local interfaces annd MUST conform to [RFC4291].

I agree with this statement. But it seems to be a normative update to RFC 8754. In that case, this draft needs to be Standards Track, not Informational. That would lead to a few minor text changes.

>  4.1. Open Issues to be Addressed with C-SIDs 

>  4.2. Applicability to other forms of compressed SIDs 

I agree with these sections, but we need some feedback from the C-SID authors. It would be best to see these points acknowledged and handled by the C-SID authors before finalizing the present draft.

>  5. Allocation of a Global Unicast Prefix for SIDs 

I also agree with this proposal, and again, we need feedback from SPRING so that the necessary guidelines can be incorporated here, as part of the documentation of the allocation.

>  6. IANA Considerations
> 
> IANA is requested to assign a /16 global unicast address block...

Seems right, if SPRING concurs.

> ...out of the "Reserved by IETF" range defined in the Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space registry.

For which the formal procedure is "IESG Approval". In practice, I think that reinforces the need for this to be a Standards Track document. I can't imagine the IESG assigning address space just like that.

Nits
----

MUST used without citing BCP 14.

>  1. Introduction
> 
> Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) [RFC8754] uses IPv6 as the underlying data plane. In SRv6, SR source nodes initiate packets with a segment in the Destination Address of the IPv6 header

I think that should be "with a segment identifier..."

>  2. Terminology
> 
> The following terms are used as defined in [RFC8402].
>  * Segment Routing (SR)
>  * SR Domain
>  * Segment
>  * Segment ID (SID)

Should be
  * Segment identifier (SID)

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email