RE: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Tue, 05 November 2019 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@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 3A043120013 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:37:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 wQhl3gPsBeDV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:37:26 -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 1773E120077 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 5F3FDAE7AD2B410552E7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:37:22 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:37:21 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 15:37:13 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
CC: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01
Thread-Topic: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01
Thread-Index: AQHVkNp1vSw+2l7wQkiVjZA5BgCgSqd2EMsAgAAC24CAAAVMgIAGGU5Q
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:37:12 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF07ACE4@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <CALx6S35298CHBJsSs3LGY_0Pp2_eW-dQFCbQ6SLQneoQ5U=_yQ@mail.gmail.com> <FE11E326-43C2-409C-864E-62AD8B893050@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <FE11E326-43C2-409C-864E-62AD8B893050@employees.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/uWGWUsL_pGD8ZPPWcWjcRP4Ytuk>
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 07:37:28 -0000

Hi Tom and Ole,

Thanks for your comments.
Yes, your proposal is a very good guidance for users to choose the mode how to take the alt-mark field.
We will revise to show these considerations.
But I think this is for the idea cases.
We would also like to show some "abnormal" usage for legacy network. :-)
That is to say, using SRH and DO for the hop by hop usage. I see the similar usage in RFC7837.
What's your thoughts?

BR,
Tianran

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
> Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2019 2:16 AM
> To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>;
> Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01
> 
> 
> 
> > On 1 Nov 2019, at 18:57, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>; wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:46 AM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>; wrote:
> >>
> >> DestOpt => measurement only  by node in DA HBH => every router on the
> >> path with feature enabled SRH TLV => every node along the SR path
> >> DestOpt + SRH => every node along the SR path
> >>
> > Ole,
> >
> > So the last two have identical effects, hence we've introduced the
> > complexity or redundant protocol mechanisms.
> 
> Yes, that should guide us in making choices here.
> 
> Ole
> 
> 
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >> Cheers
> >> Ole
> >>
> >>>> On 1 Nov 2019, at 18:33, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>; wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>>> From the draft: "Regarding Hop-By-Hop Options Header, if we
> >>>> consider
> >>> its real deployment, it is sometimes dropped by legacy devices and
> >>> not so used by intermediate nodes.  Destination Options Header is
> >>> preferred."
> >>>
> >>> I don't think this is helpful guidance. First of all, it's not just
> >>> Hop-by-Hop options that can be dropped, it's pretty much packets
> >>> with any extension heades or atypical protocols that might be
> >>> dropped by legacy devices-- including packets with Destination
> >>> Options or Routing Headers. Neither does it make sense that
> >>> Destination Options Header is preferred, as correctly stated in the
> >>> previous paragraph DO and HBH address difference use cases (i.e. DO
> >>> is end to end, and HBH is per hop). Saying that DO is preferred is
> >>> equivalent to saying that end-to-end performance measurements are
> >>> preferred which I doubt is the intent. IMO, this whole paragraph
> >>> could be removed without loss of content.
> >>>
> >>> "SRH TLV can also be a good choice from this point of view.  The
> >>> intermediated nodes that are not in the SID list can consider the
> >>> SRH as a green field, they cannot support and bypass or support and
> >>> dig into the SRH TLV."
> >>>
> >>> I disagree with the conclusion that SRH TLV is a good choice. The
> >>> implicit assumption in this paragraph is that somehow SRH EH is less
> >>> likely to be dropped by intermediate nodes than other EH like DO and
> >>> HBH. I don't think there's any data to support that. Additionally,
> >>> it's not clear what use case an SRH TLV addresses that can't already
> >>> be addressed by Destination or HBH options.
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------