IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] 64-bit locators

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 20 December 2019 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 4C1F2120836 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:24:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 gjRvSIsfD-KP for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59620120840 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id y8so3823276qvk.6 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:24:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4Dq4jnhH721aGfIu5OTbLAUFoxY1J5rAJ/uUOQ+CnYE=; b=Bvzi/DiM1WgO+X5O9MRRHfUnqsWX+iNwaIegc2ZCHYKiNSsvq3x3J+uG8gwqi1TB6u 2Mp1hTZEeMbr4uIX14c9YYodU7z+spPbF+Sr3vsgctutaujb77X6fWF05/L0/5MGXcp5 9RGt0KKaw7PfVPJnVRe1PMtQSHzWbqZ+YTL+o4E7BbdCOTfFhuU4c59UpDmnAQR/p8b9 JwpQXIqdPBOsKXfp9YPfRM4CZLnXcUdPQHI2gOgKBr4Y+9/zDstMDYJCr/uYixaIzZrC LWsWsRO+4GKp7h540dXdLL5CNR06KVdHsW78KUbZ0Yihn7hKX0RfURhl8lMezgSS9gT8 HVRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4Dq4jnhH721aGfIu5OTbLAUFoxY1J5rAJ/uUOQ+CnYE=; b=eo/qiw029H5L2lXZBo4rx3vs2v8ToIHRr4Dgr2XjeHd3v1755/DDE6jid2k/8h1DNY 8bcsRvZvbxLGvaOWF/tXHU5dYih7CahY6HDPb3ESexloQSKbG4Iazm2KrRUHvLmf7g8F +t7lF7tsxeTmj2noHo7xX1Ftxj9cHHcPl67V14ZsG4088MdV63zgsYWRe/joWxO23BGK j3NYzQiulpOXVqY3ugTxePXK6/bKyb6r09YNvmfVEhaCcCgs2oh1u6HPldQV2ixP/zhW qVNBKNiAzoN08H1fwgq5rQUf5QJLXBjPTNdD+jIXbtOqlAZDBtzXNkB8PygK1MEIDZB4 UQpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV67+vhCw4nnLYV815iI6w0M1iVOVQvIbrLD18swCM4ac2rWAib ZTZRnrGtj9EDKJMjR5Vfgec2Or708KX9p340u2syZA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz0IzUsOQP2Lb0scMxT89McmLVryT+7tHQ0oox02tguSvLJbOP6ScWbr8AZbDAYEDicXTc9KalLQYqtKaGZ/qI=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e84d:: with SMTP id l13mr13086436qvo.53.1576859063277; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:24:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BN7PR05MB5699D85CC99CB23B1B573901AE530@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2yAH4ECeB+PGRS98HgZHXtTq3iX1x6aMSPjKgS6O1GDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <8f5607c9-645a-ea88-e2a7-a4bed8206fc8@gmail.com> <63F5AA66-AEF8-4278-B98C-D3C53AC5A60A@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2x-5NUYHAzjBAR3je7EoPde=-autOXyta5EvqDydbVMWA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1xZEx6_eZpdgvWAmiopXT-SACR1DM_KSeF_JSDvgSSOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGSbdL2ZP-_uX_464Tov7MV0vu=cmoKpw71-vL8R4HpRw@mail.gmail.com> <069e6021-537c-422a-37da-f090a6ac334b@gmail.com> <DBBPR03MB5415CDB6870E8E6B69522E40EE2D0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHOqJWo+ofewx5LF81zA7sGNGwdBgh3X1CSujZbTw9TCw@mail.gmail.com> <DBBPR03MB54156546800063A85AF17591EE2D0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHbqFCR9jZDrTHTy00MQTWEP30Zm6PhZtNriFW99edORw@mail.gmail.com> <DBBPR03MB54159E584DBFDC88FAF6C00BEE2D0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR03MB54159E584DBFDC88FAF6C00BEE2D0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:24:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMF=x8egpsjqemz9rvbsmqCn=_9k=9Fb8fCMkgcQ4i3yDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000053f274059a251c54"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2eNf0Jfx50ChjnX2dfdpLC5i95I>
Subject: Re: [spring] 64-bit locators
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:24:30 -0000

Really ?

If in an implementation SID would be just a logical interface on a box
doesn't it deserve to be both routable as well as have an arbitrary opaque
ID assigned to it ?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:18 PM Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> In my view – there is a fundamental difference.
>
>
>
> The stated rfc refers to a derived interface identifier – with an
> interface identifier being a well defined concept in RFC4291 – it specifies
> the actions taken on said interface identifier – it does not alter the
> specification.
>
>
>
> Here – you have gone way beyond that.
>
>
>
> This actually eliminates the interface identifier from the address and
> replaces the interface identifier with something that has no bearing on an
> interface – that is a redefinition of the specification.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, 20 December 2019 18:58
> *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
> *Cc:* Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; Gyan Mishra <
> hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; Mark Smith <
> markzzzsmith@gmail.com>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcamaril@cisco.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] 64-bit locators
>
>
>
>
>
> Therefore – this redefines the address semantics – and that – should be
> accompanied by an update to said drafts to avoid confusion and to avoid
> potential future complications
>
>
>
> Please observe that we have a lot of IETF documents putting various stuff
> into IPv6 128 bits. Take rfc7599 as an easy example. Where do you see
> anyone in IETF requested to update IPv6 base specs when any of such
> documents were going via standards track ?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email