Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 01 October 2022 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 A6202C14CE2A; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aPdZgy5eCah3; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECFE7C14CE29; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4MfYn65p0dz1ntRm; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1664598058; bh=0ddMUUsce8DgDyC+p7IbynIn8FSf6NguGAbgWWTByHA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=bbCnIHeUuzopCdycyoHDzvU/WtMjrBkEW3tNoIKK7u7ihjgBJILeVw00FGBwnmy44 KBYu3Trcn06Wn2vzoZhX53HXgT3QDqaxUkHPx3T/YPYoGRKkyXOgDRjtW1y8sv3tfz 0cqnTC3yIx6fkZFsF0RbHYmnP5uk1pbkiyLT8kqc=
X-Quarantine-ID: <oUIdvulu-3Kh>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.23.73] (unknown [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4MfYn54j00z1nsTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------NGW3zkoUyCa2kIQkYJ8GRT8J"
Message-ID: <fccd2c35-941f-628f-edc1-275afa89c35f@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 00:20:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, spring <spring@ietf.org>
References: <202210011022164739921@chinatelecom.cn> <529B3497-2A89-4522-85D8-D6CF21B963C5@gmail.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <529B3497-2A89-4522-85D8-D6CF21B963C5@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3E-kArANnNbUaADh7uE5AGITcgA>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 04:21:08 -0000

Hmmm.   I read "signal" in the draft as "indicate".  That is, for 
example, if there is an address range defined to be reserved for SIDs 
then that range appearing in the destination address is the "signal".

Yours,

Joel

On 10/1/2022 12:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> It talks about a signal, but the signal is currently undefined. 
> Therefore there has to be some new protocol or a configuration 
> parameter, perhaps carried by DHCP.
>
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>
>> On Sep 30, 2022, at 7:25 PM, Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hi,folks
>> I support the progress the draft for its publiction. In addition, I 
>> have the following suggestion and comment,
>> I suggest that the title of the draft be changed to better reflect 
>> its purpose and content. The current title seems to be an explanation 
>> of a terminalogy of SRv6. In fact, this draft mainly introduces the 
>> behavior of SRv6 SIDs and the relationship between SRv6 SIDs and IPv6 
>> addressing architecture.
>> It is mentioned in section 5 that "allocate some address space that 
>> explicitly signals that the addresses within that space are not 
>> intended to comply with [RFC4291].", I‘d like to know where to Signal 
>> in the network? Is any new protocol needed to signal?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Chongfeng
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
>>
>>     *From:* Jen Linkova <mailto:furry13@gmail.com>
>>     *Date:* 2022-09-17 16:00
>>     *To:* 6man <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>; spring <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
>>     *CC:* 6man Chairs <mailto:6man-chairs@ietf.org>;
>>     draft-ietf-6man-sids.authors
>>     <mailto:draft-ietf-6man-sids.authors@ietf.org>; spring-chairs
>>     <mailto:spring-chairs@ietf.org>
>>     *Subject:* [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids
>>     Hello,
>>     This email starts the 6man Working Group Last Call for the "Segment
>>     Identifiers in SRv6" draft
>>     (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids).
>>     The WGLC ends on Tue, Oct 4, 23:59:59 UTC.
>>     As the document is closely related to the work in the SPRING WG, we'd
>>     like the SPRING WG to review the document and discuss the following
>>     questions:
>>     - the action items required from SPRING (Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the
>>     draft,
>>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4)
>>     [*]. Would it make sense to merge those open issues with the 'Open
>>     Issues' section of
>>     the SPRING document?
>>     -  whether the document needs more guidance regarding routability of
>>     /16 or such requirements shall belong to some other document?  In
>>     particular,  shall we specify that it MUST NOT be in the DFZ? Or
>>     setting 'Globally Reachable = false' in the registry should be
>>     sufficient? The current idea is that the prefix needs to fail closed
>>     and not be routable by default.
>>     [*] The draft currently refers to the individual submission
>>     instead of
>>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
>>     - the link will be updated in the next revision.
>>     Please review the draft and send your comments to the list/
>>     -- 
>>     SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     spring mailing list
>>     spring@ietf.org
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------