Re: IPv4 EH proposal

Without commenting on the specific technical proposal.

IPv4 is still critical infrastructure in many organizations.

We have to maintain it until its natural death. If we neglect the 
maintenance, or worse try to euthanise it, it will end up either 
explicitly or implicitly being maintained by another organization.

We would thus be wise to actively maintain IPv4 for as long as users 
need us to, rather than to risk loosing control of it and its future 
developments.

- Stewart

On 07/09/2019 16:01, Lee Howard wrote:
> IPv4 is dying. Let it go gracefully.
> 
> I'm completely opposed to any extensions to the IPv4 specification. By 
> the time the feature set is code complpete, QA'd, and ready for general 
> release, 80% of the world will be using IPv6.
> 
> Specific to this case, I have a very hard time understanding the 
> business/engineering case where it would be optimal to implement these 
> extensions rather than deploy IPv6, where they already exist.
> 
> Lee
> 
> On 9/7/19 7:32 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>> /* Adjusting the subject to reflect the topic */
>>
>> Ok ... I looked at the new wave of mails in wrong order :)
>>
>> I like this proposal:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-01
>>
>> And have absolutely nothing against progressing it further - it looks 
>> on the surface to be more efficient then sr-mpls over IP - but how 
>> many bits are we saving needs to be calculated to state if cost of 
>> introducing new encoding justifies the additional control plane, 
>> protocol and platform efforts
>>
>> In fact if we would get to the consensus of using SRH with SID & BSID 
>> to be of fixed 20 bits it can reuse a lot of mechanism build for 
>> sr-mpls in any commercial router.
>>
>>  It is just a bit amazing that insertion of EHs into IPv4 would be 
>> less problematic that in the case of IPv6 :) Maybe due to allowed 
>> fragmentation.
>>
>> As to the host dropping packets due to unknown protocol - let's 
>> observe that SR domain would clean such EH before passing packets 
>> further.
>>
>> Many thx,
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 1:14 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:56, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net
>>     <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     > > It's tempting to write up SR over IPv4
>>     >
>>     > You don't have to write anything ... it is already written and
>>     looks like moving fwd :)
>>     >
>>     > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-07
>>     >
>>
>>     That's tunnelling MPLS over SR over IPv4. I'm talking about native SR
>>     over IPv4 e.g. "SRv4".
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests:https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 