IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

sthaug@nethelp.no Fri, 06 September 2019 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 A4F68120142; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 23:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 PGqvuqHPs0UM; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 23:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4217112002E; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 23:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7339EE6079; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:41:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 08:41:32 +0200
Message-Id: <20190906.084132.330516044.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB54637D3761C4BCC2B452241FAEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB5463EC3250F2A303A3641839AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9CCE1F5C-A886-4B06-8B97-D0645CFFE5E2@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB54637D3761C4BCC2B452241FAEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 26 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/DyE7ernt1Gcb3IoGKjM2CqLG9Bc>
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 06:41:37 -0000

> Nothing so complicated is required. At most, PING and TRACEROUTE with RFC 5837 extensions.

Are there any vendors actually implementing RFC 5837? Ivan Pepelnjak
commented "However, it looks like nobody implemented it in almost five
years since it was published." at

   https://blog.ipspace.net/2016/01/are-unnumbered-interfaces-harmful.html

Has the situation changed?

Steinar Haug, AS2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email