Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 03:13, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
<pcamaril=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Gyan,
>
>
>
> SRH insertion is NOT part of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15.
>

Removal is, and it is just as much of a hack as EH insertion is.













> (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]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
> Sent: lunes, 11 de mayo de 2020 18:02
> To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>; 6man <[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]> 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]> 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]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [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]
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------