Re: [spring] SRv6 SIDs and IPv6 addressing

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, 03:39 Darren Dukes (ddukes), <ddukes=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Sander, such things as ‘pseudo interfaces’ are local behavior, they're
> implementation specific.
>

Given the protocol lawyering SPRING have been playing with RFC 8200, that's
never going through to fly when RFC 4291 says:

IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes

Regards,
Mark.

> Darren
>
> > On Mar 16, 2020, at 1:39 PM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> How this relates to NETPGM
> >> - SRv6 SIDs are IPv6 addresses.
> >> - SRv6 SIDs are not necessarily interface addresses.
> >
> > This will need some work, because according to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.1: "IPv6 addresses of all
> types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes.". I think at least defining a
> pseudo-interface (like a loopback) is required to comply with RFC 4291.
> >
> > Speaking as an operator: this would also make SRv6 SIDs easier to
> understand conceptually. It would also make it easier to debug because the
> SID would be a "normal" IPv6 address on an interface, not something that
> isn't visible in the RIB/FIB but is still handled in the local router.
> Having a RIB/FIB entry and an interface (if only a pseudo one) would make
> existing debugging practices easier to apply.
> >
> > If NETPGM deviates from RFC 4291 I think that needs to be strongly
> justified. Not deviating from existing standards should be the default :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sander
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>