Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 12 March 2020 12:55 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 7EDCB3A041D; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (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 kcZ5KqhqQzoG; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:55:53 -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 A7D833A0418; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967B14C; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:55:49 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1584017747; bh=EUl9qKkSRwI+1dDIqyxAYXXN1Ux4uomH1Vp5rnA+p90=; b=C /3FdJPGc1CM4KOW6eBd0qB3N/90qwldpISwHtTr9I3+a/lyYDTni09FL0Zg5r1C1 eH4gnfsx2N9BN8tEDibNdadwmTzrHWHzoFjfB0+/TwJ3gAUoy4UKRaaF7/AsiuRa ubqrhT7Aen+b348eDzPdi3Jaf7auAO4Isw5UhaTkfY=
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 PtJSS7nULK81; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:55:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:9e0:4:12:70e9:5c77:14c9:5b54] (unknown [IPv6:2001:9e0:4:12:70e9:5c77:14c9:5b54]) (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 09BB23C; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:55:47 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CMW3PR11MB457048CF5DA72DF87D1BC0ABC1FD0=40MW3PR11MB?= =?utf-8?q?4570=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:55:46 +0100
Cc: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5004D04F-11DB-4F3E-B5F1-2D6309FC449B@steffann.nl>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C17421=5F1575566127=5F5DE93B2F=5F17421=5F93=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= <3e2da3a5-5d1b-10a0-aeb4-320c57584241@nokia.com> <265A3B0A-358B-4163-B7E1-2FFE36B3607E@liquidtelecom.com> =?utf-8?q?=3C14D40038-77D4-43DB-AC36-1199EE547944=40cisco=2Ecom=3E_=3CDBBPR?= =?utf-8?q?03MB5415A2097FD500326B7907FCEEE30=40DBBPR03MB5415=2Eeurprd03=2Epr?= =?utf-8?q?od=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CC223D73B-D556-427C-82AB-0042C33E32F4=40cisco=2Ecom=3E_=3CDBBPR?= =?utf-8?q?03MB5415ADF9271EE267C3205CCBEEFC0=40DBBPR03MB5415=2Eeurprd03=2Epr?= =?utf-8?q?od=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3C0F51DF13-B058-4850-91E1-AF4B49DE158C=40cisco=2Ecom=3E_=3CDBBPR?= =?utf-8?q?03MB54150C911B32F8F0B2CC7C59EEFC0=40DBBPR03MB5415=2Eeurprd03=2Epr?= =?utf-8?q?od=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CED4F23CB-C6EE-454F-89B5-E4C088218046=40cisco=2Ecom=3E_=3CDBBPR?= =?utf-8?q?03MB54159F78083CBCA412243A91EEFD0=40DBBPR03MB5415=2Eeurprd03=2Epr?= =?utf-8?q?od=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E_=3CMW3PR11MB45701FA2CE7AC6823891A1F1C1FD0?= =?utf-8?q?=40MW3PR11MB4570=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CAF5782C8-DB7C-4C20-BDB5-E9212DCC3244=40steffann=2Enl=3E_=3CMW3?= =?utf-8?q?PR11MB457048CF5DA72DF87D1BC0ABC1FD0=40MW3PR11MB4570=2Enamprd11=2E?= =?utf-8?q?prod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ETF_l4ozaQCfnBlfHHup8TUfnek>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
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, 12 Mar 2020 12:55:56 -0000

Hi,

> So what is it that you and Andrew see in the net-pgm draft or the SRv6 proposal that lead you to believe such a change in the IPv6 assignment or allocation sizes are required by RIRs?

Well, your example mentions that a /40 is used for SRv6 in a very large setup. A regular business entity has a /48 and a regular ISP will have a /29 available. I think it is necessary to look at what an expected address space requirements for SRv6 will be for such entities, and whether that fits and leaves enough remaining address space for the rest of the network.

What is also necessary is to see if the way SRv6 uses addresses is compatible with the RIR policies. In the RIPE NCC region we have https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707#assignment_infra, which basically allows for a separate /48 per PoP and a single /48 for in-house operation of the operator. If changes are required in RIR policies their communities need to be told so, and mutual expectations of what will and will not be considered acceptable address space use will have to be discussed.

> I am assuming this is the same "IP Space burn" topic that Andrew alludes to …

Yes
Sander