IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 02 September 2019 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556B2120110 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 ywAjuV2gXjfh for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D13C6120052 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: fgont@si6networks.com
Received: from crumpet.foobar.org (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x82BVO9P005391 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:31:25 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.foobar.org
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <CAHd-QWtA21+2Sm616Fnw0D-eB7SNb_BeG8-A-MCLLFgTwSpOsg@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB54630831722DE1D3E6C7F872AEBC0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <abded144-7557-1093-874c-0f9ca708af6a@si6networks.com> <BL0PR05MB5458C00081B05584E77DB19DAEBF0@BL0PR05MB5458.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <160e947d-790e-67fb-3366-fdc5f1d34f8c@foobar.org> <CAOj+MMGCfpUxu+Rfgpk4Nhbjp2_PeRb-JnHOi7Ru3Ov085WWRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2w7yGUQUtE474h5pk0=iz+F5dwRHPHDbAscJqHQiP+WuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMH-Vjpbz0=VSDHBMDnDBPDyOCLFzKYFJQO0_7YPPOZcJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zCKQdBydLdOFFAmkZJ3zvtN+mfT4UAtJyrncqCUqpDgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHmLsTCaa_x+GVsLiH5Y+kBu3MBVOTYhE3WpGt8W90c_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <e02139fe-a06e-7fc0-7d5c-dae1e4010ddb@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:31:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHmLsTCaa_x+GVsLiH5Y+kBu3MBVOTYhE3WpGt8W90c_g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/0HkdYw3X58N0Piczdp5OEodfhRo>
Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:58:35 -0000

Robert Raszuk wrote on 02/09/2019 12:09:
> If that is the only concern I think we are done then. The only issue is 
> that if you happen to have hierarchical IGP you will not be able to 
> summarize them - but I don't think that this would be a showstopper to 
> any deployment.

Robert,

please correct me if I'm wrong but uSIDs would need to be injected into 
the provider's routing tables, so your suggestion that ULAs would be 
appropriate for the srv6-usid draft would be contingent on SRv6 
providers being ok about the idea of injecting ULAs into their core.

I'm not sure that this would necessarily be the case.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email