IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] 64-bit locators

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 20 December 2019 15:57 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 262B51200CE for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:57:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 VyocajMLilLF for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 E96AF1200CC for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id 5so8590653qtz.1 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:57:46 -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=fzg5nXJJYM1aWDOs1OMRO4Z4jpcnC/sfpRGmwTyUx0Y=; b=G85lZfxiB066fjY6JnpS0x1p+nr5+/Kr2RDYgqoR3H9mhU3/dDHWMkwBWEdsXuJw/n XwqVeArE8ZB8Q22fzf0vJVMWF7IpKWvFll9BApbd0hwW+WpcdQfBY6zsfa1prmgFVNIN RMmcxikwD7JgRgc1AqjFSojY2gCTOEk4rfcIrI7LqPXAvRz7UYmzxhWGPbVAkVtJUaX7 LN3wdm4KOm0WFtx/6ZjYmWckPomT7AospUkSy7KASKLyqwY3yBXLM38OS6pfz34eQMdg qgYTFHSzx6Obwy+m6lggCF/c6yE3DWgtHQj4i7G5aGtqs++nLyY6ThQ4PPb3uk6/bUZB O9VQ==
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=fzg5nXJJYM1aWDOs1OMRO4Z4jpcnC/sfpRGmwTyUx0Y=; b=Z28B1O07uV03KDHBZhvqJx1jNFDK+yDRGhdyISLWPXJQ48uRG3CPymwNUK22fCn9R2 d36HhqtbALyDcw/+kxuSRHSfi5k5JiSVvTcWdWGpDaGZqHnV/eiaNi801Pn2f/O+PfUF xGq3aVbKQYr535gessdmGoI/eCe8K/UQ04j2V2ZMWOZK9sgNo6YayLmFHXwH3X4uiK6R ssQhAAwNVUEkM+FrI/ia98GjYDMv9e9uqhqxHSMcr1qkFCwcLwvNvYd2SneB0pWhJmxE lqMF0nqU/0EStopj+R+V8UeMZYraHawkFL10XD2xjuuDyXLfYx7ViP/MJhxo5A0kXiiG 0fYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVXzFn3Bhw4H2kT+e2Tnc8kh4oipEHq9tSjP+P/qpx/6bVO4/zP WrWW2S8PxS1g+8iaiqHV4OOzW1KGHJrT95SJBr5wWQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw+PfbuGSiWSArUs/Arr0yQvsXH3n7swkUj9XldmgiFrUPp+A5KrEAZ/qmrV7jhPJEKeW7khzedPQ2qo9jSuZw=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2584:: with SMTP id x4mr12691745qtc.343.1576857465838; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:57:45 -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>
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR03MB54156546800063A85AF17591EE2D0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:57:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHbqFCR9jZDrTHTy00MQTWEP30Zm6PhZtNriFW99edORw@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="0000000000001cfab4059a24bd2f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/7rGXO-PbG6wLVTOJTIbcRpR8B6c>
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 15:57:51 -0000

> 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