Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-11.txt>
"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com> Thu, 05 April 2018 22:38 UTC
Return-Path: <ddukes@cisco.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 A7A571267BB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 lGogrGjjs2xB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBAE9120454 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=73736; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1522967912; x=1524177512; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=yVdAHch2BuskfuB9zBAK3vydR9270yoS7BLctRICnIg=; b=XzdcnQyelrOBqR1R3iN7kSvnzKEIXuUPRpkVcby9pUat7dC14CCSiNwL ZlvWdJyIm9LYoL5+2HWuznqEKZ02yC1PD8C5E+QgkfU1vdFCgnTgk2EQ1 wOaCzifAzNXL60AebxV3yevB61TJHwq9TyJA2xQ8LMsLPMrAeFjHwApKF U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DFAACupMZa/5xdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJNdWFvKAqDVYgAjQqBUyGBD4Zhi3SBegsjhGACGoIUITQYAQIBAQEBAQECbBwMhSIBAQEBAx0GSwsMBAIBCA4DBAEBIQEGAwICAh8RFAkIAgQOBYQpTAMVD6skghyHEg2BK4IgBYdqgVQ/gS4MglaCT0IEGIRCMIIkAocliSWGSiwIAoVRhWGCfYEyiwuHKYFxPIYGAhETAYEkARw4gVJwFToqAYIYhXyKUm+MPQGBFgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.48,412,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="94287411"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Apr 2018 22:38:30 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (xch-aln-019.cisco.com [173.36.7.29]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w35McU53009510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Apr 2018 22:38:30 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) by XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (173.36.7.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 17:38:29 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com ([173.36.7.27]) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com ([173.36.7.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 17:38:29 -0500
From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
CC: stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-11.txt>
Thread-Topic: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-11.txt>
Thread-Index: AQHTzRXAIX2T3+Ty60GW4CyjmsseSaPy/agAgAAZnwA=
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 22:38:29 +0000
Message-ID: <7042FA53-AEC8-4428-BFAB-5777E524381E@cisco.com>
References: <20160428004904.25189.43047.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FB1C6E49-81F7-49DD-8E8B-2C0C4735071B@gmail.com> <SN6PR05MB424035B6FECB0057676067B1AEA40@SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <87EAF1D7-FC8A-4661-990E-ECCF4AA7C12E@previdi.net> <SN6PR05MB42406D76603C4D7E1B3BE321AEBB0@SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <11D3A431-705F-49F8-8F8B-F0668B9289B8@cisco.com> <SN6PR05MB4240DCD7B55FAAE93D31BF75AEBB0@SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR05MB4240DCD7B55FAAE93D31BF75AEBB0@SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.192.95]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7042FA53AEC84428BFAB5777E524381Eciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qGw5ZmIWyGqrgFq61-mc1_Zvcuo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 22:38:36 -0000
See inline. On Apr 5, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> wrote: Darren, Thanks! I am feeling much better than yesterday! I think that we are getting to the bottom of that subtle difference between SL in RFC 8200 and SL in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header. In RFC 8200, a node receives a packet that satisfies the following conditions: - IPv6 Destination Address is local to the node - Packet contains a Routing Extension Header - Routing Extension Header SL value is equal to 0 The correct behavior is to skip over the Routing Extension Header and process the next header. The Routing Extension Header has already been completely processed by upstream nodes. In fact it doesn't even matter if the node recognizes the Routing Extension Type. The node will skip over it, regardless of its type. Agreed In draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, a node receives a packet that satisfies the same conditions. The required behavior is to process the instruction in Segment List [0]. You are still incorrect here, this doesn’t match the text in the draft. You certainly don’t match the END processing in Section 4.1. The required behavior is to process the instruction in the DA (which happens to be the same as Segment List[0] when SL=0) We always process the instruction in the DA as mentioned in Section 4.1. The Segment List is used to put the next instruction in the destination address and forward. That’s it. Darren When I has done this, the Routing Extension Header will be completely processed. The node better recognize the SRH, because skipping the instruction might be dangerous. The difference between SL in RFC 8200 and SL in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing is subtle, but significant. Ron -----Original Message----- From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com<mailto:ddukes@cisco.com>> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 3:39 PM To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> Cc: stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net<mailto:stefano@previdi.net>>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- header-11.txt> Hi Ron, I’m glad you’re feeling a bit better. Your analysis of SL is not correct. Both 2460, 8200 and SRH say the same thing for SL==0 but you’re getting stuck on what 'the index, in the Segment List, of the next segment to inspect’ means. Using the same example from 2460 section 4.4 but modifying for the Segment List[] defined in SRH. As the packet travels from S to I1: Source Address = S Hdr Ext Len = 6 Destination Address = I1 Segments Left = 3 Segment List[0] = D Segment List[1] = I3 Segment List[2] = I2 Segment List[3] = I1 As the packet travels from I1 to I2: Source Address = S Hdr Ext Len = 6 Destination Address = I2 Segments Left = 2 Segment List[0] = D Segment List[1] = I3 Segment List[2] = I2 Segment List[3] = I1 As the packet travels from I2 to I3: Source Address = S Hdr Ext Len = 6 Destination Address = I3 Segments Left = 1 Segment List[0] = D Segment List[1] = I3 Segment List[2] = I2 Segment List[3] = I1 As the packet travels from I3 to D: Source Address = S Hdr Ext Len = 6 Destination Address = D Segments Left = 0 Segment List[0] = D Segment List[1] = I3 Segment List[2] = I2 Segment List[3] = I1 SL always points to the "next segment to inspect", that segment is also in the Destination Address. For example between I1 and I2, the next segment to inspect is I2, the SL==2 which is the index in Segment List of I2. The same is true for I3 to D where SL==0, the next segment to inspect is D, but the SRH need not be processed because SL==0. Section 4.1 of SRH shows this quite clearly in its description of the END function where SL is decremented then the Segment at SRH[SL] is used to update the Destination Address. 1. IF SegmentsLeft > 0 THEN 2. decrement SL 3. update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL] 4. FIB lookup on updated DA 5. forward accordingly to the matched entry 8. ELSE 7. drop the packet I hope this clears up the confusion. Darren On Apr 5, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Stephano, I'm glad you asked this question. RFC 8200 and draft-ietf-6man-segment- routing-header define Segments Left (SL) differently. The difference is a bit subtle and took me a few readings to catch. RFC 8200 defines SL as follows: "8-bit unsigned integer. Number of route segments remaining, i.e., number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes still to be visited before reaching the final destination." Therefore, if a packet arrives at a node and the following conditions are true, the node skips over the Routing Extension Header and processes the next header: - The packets IPv6 Destination address is local to the node - The packet contains a Routing Extension Header - The SL value in the Routing Extension Header is equal to 0 In RFC 2460, Routing Extension Type RH0 was compliant with this behavior. The description of RHO (RFC 2460, Section 4.4) explains how RH0 used to process SL, offering pseudocode and an example. Between the publication of RFC 2460 and RFC 8200, RHO was deprecated for other reasons. Therefore, the detailed example of SL handling was not brought forward into RFC 8200. But even though this example was not brought forward into RFC 8200, it explains why RFC 8200 says: "If, while processing a received packet, a node encounters a Routing header with an unrecognized Routing Type value, the required behavior of the node depends on the value of the Segments Left field, as follows: If Segments Left is zero, the node must ignore the Routing header and proceed to process the next header in the packet, whose type is identified by the Next Header field in the Routing header. If Segments Left is non-zero, the node must discard the packet and send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to the packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized Routing Type." This is because an SL value of 0 means that the Routing Extension Header has already been completely processed by upstream nodes. Even if the node recognized the Routing Type, it still would skip over it. By contrast, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing header defines the Segments Left as follows: "Defined in [RFC8200], it contains the index, in the Segment List, of the next segment to inspect. Segments Left is decremented at each segment. Therefore, if a packet arrives at a node and the following conditions are true, the node processes Segment[0]: - The packets IPv6 Destination address is local to the node - The packet contains a Routing Extension Header - The SL value in the Routing Extension Header is equal to 0 This is different from the behavior described in RFC 8200 and 2460. It also raises two questions: - If the node doesn't recognize SRH, is it safe to ignore the SRH, as recommended by RFC 8200 - If the node does recognize SRH and the segment requires decapsulation and forwarding, are Extension Headers that follow SRH (e.g. Fragment, Destination Options) ignored? Ron -----Original Message----- From: stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net<mailto:stefano@previdi.net>> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 5:30 AM To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- header-11.txt> Ron, on comment 5: Section 2.2 SRv6 Segment (Comment 5) According to RFC 8200: "If, while processing a received packet, a node encounters a Routing header with an unrecognized Routing Type value, the required behavior of the node depends on the value of the Segments Left field, as follows: - If Segments Left is zero, the node must ignore the Routing header and proceed to process the next header in the packet, whose type is identified by the Next Header field in the Routing header. - If Segments Left is non-zero, the node must discard the packet and send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to the packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized Routing Type." This is safe, so long as all Routing Extension Types use SL == 0 to indicate that the Routing Extension Header has been completely processed. It is may not be safe when SL == 0 means that one more segment needs to be processed. In the SRH, SL == 0 indicates that one more segment needs to be processed. sorry, I don’t understand. Can you point me the text in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header that states that ? If it’s the case it should be obviously corrected. SL==0 means the packet is traveling within the last segment. draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header does not modify the semantic of “Segments Left”. It does modify the way segment list is encoded (that’s one of the reason it’s a different routing header type) but not the "Segments Left” field semantic. s. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6S cbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl- AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=WmPR- DmQkiyFhWqdRohhiCg015eX46xGJmHofETXsM0&s=7bmAIXTGfcwjaJMMnP w7zYDgOQmzyIQ66CYofnt72Dw&e= --------------------------------------------------------------------
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt internet-drafts
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… Alissa Cooper
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… weigengyu
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-default-… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… 神明達哉
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alissa Cooper
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… weigengyu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alissa Cooper
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… 神明達哉
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alissa Cooper
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… joel jaeggli
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… joel jaeggli
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alissa Cooper
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… 神明達哉
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… 神明達哉
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alissa Cooper
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… 神明達哉
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… otroan
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… 神明達哉
- default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Section 3 Alissa Cooper
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- RE: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Lorenzo Colitti
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Fernando Gont
- Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… otroan
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Fernando Gont
- Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Secti… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-defa… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… weigengyu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.t… Brian E Carpenter
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-maxra-01> Bob Hinden
- REMINDER: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6ma… Bob Hinden
- Re: REMINDER: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: REMINDER: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf… Tim Chown
- Re: REMINDER: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: REMINDER: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: REMINDER: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf… Fernando Gont
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-ndpioian… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-ndpi… Mikael Abrahamsson
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-ndpi… Templin, Fred L
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-ndpi… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-ndpi… Nick Hilliard
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-ndpioian… Bob Hinden
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6… Tim Chown
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6… Templin, Fred L
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6… Bob Hinden
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6… mohamed.boucadair
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- ECMP and flow label [Re: 6man w.g. last call for … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ECMP and flow label [Re: 6man w.g. last call … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: ECMP and flow label [Re: 6man w.g. last call … Tom Herbert
- Re: ECMP and flow label [Re: 6man w.g. last call … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ECMP and flow label [Re: 6man w.g. last call … Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Brian E Carpenter
- Issue Tracker for 6man w.g. last call for <draft-… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… stefano previdi
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Kentaro Ebisawa
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… stefano previdi
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… stefano previdi
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Voyer, Daniel
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Stefano Previdi (IETF)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Kentaro Ebisawa
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-… Bob Hinden
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Nick Hilliard
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Nick Hilliard
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Bob Hinden
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Bob Hinden
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Ron Bonica
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Xiejingrong
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… stefano previdi
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel Halpern Direct
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… mohamed.boucadair
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Lizhenbin
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Zafar Ali (zali)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Voyer, Daniel
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel Halpern Direct
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Bernier, Daniel
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segm… Gyan Mishra
- Conclusion of 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf… Bob Hinden
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941b… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4… Erik Kline
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4… Fernando Gont
- 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-grand> Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Jen Linkova
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Michael Richardson
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Mark Smith
- RE: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Adrian Farrel
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Gyan Mishra
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Gyan Mishra
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Jen Linkova
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Jen Linkova
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Jen Linkova
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Jen Linkova
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Jen Linkova
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Mark Smith
- Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-gran… Mark Smith
- Conclusion of 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf… Bob Hinden