IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 05 September 2019 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 590171200E7; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 tmciHazttYhT; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2614120091; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3AE4C; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:36:22 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1567690578; bh=1xNd3+1M/anMtMS6IpN NusCpmPJ3QWcuKAmLaht62to=; b=Ycg66jzuawVRTxqk3YUGKyel5WuUAp/6xh2 PQRV1F4w/4SQf6iOo8nrGjabGUDduCpAfDfmK0gREFUYeWVv4WgSuDttf/YHkIPP csHlBjeE45eRCAFjjoMFS1XF4S4jCeVUUGqe+Qm0nBE3dw8h/YMfe94bQrtc8RHB kPM76qwc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id cYM2iNEl-dlB; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:36:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:9e0:4:12:d946:abc3:9d40:b42d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:9e0:4:12:d946:abc3:9d40:b42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CCA54B; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:36:18 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <94C728D1-8A58-4B85-A2BB-509231CC7343@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_928A0DA6-BDD7-40B9-8B3D-3486A1187ADD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 15:36:18 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAA8Zg7Evkud=hTDpVJVzP=HxF52U7qumoUHJ=bfABUpggGFDhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
To: Reji Thomas <rejithomas.d@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.3390.1567532921.9648.ipv6@ietf.org> <CAA8Zg7Evkud=hTDpVJVzP=HxF52U7qumoUHJ=bfABUpggGFDhQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/CMnnxbH5-aLsOUwfkdm1IQ73htk>
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:36:28 -0000

Hi Reji,

> SRv6+  confirms to the V6 architecture, explains the rationale behind the design and is non ambiguous to start with. Till now there has not been any valid shortcomings brought forth with the Srv6+ design. I saw a mention that SRv6+ needs to distribute the SID to address binding and hence require extensions to protocols which is not what was intended by SR. Considering at a bare minimum we would need a software/microcode update to support even the SRH parsing, I didn’t understand why  protocol extension and mapping for SR support with V6 is a bad idea. Please correct me if there is a gap in my understanding.
> 
> In view of the above ,I support SRv6+ work to continue in the SPRING WG.

I agree with your arguments. +1 on work on this in SPRING, and preferably to focus on SRv6+ and not on SRv6/uSID/etc.

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email