IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with COMMENT)

"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B611B300F; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 06:19:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 36W-G347WdI7; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 06:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 283B51B2FE8; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 06:19:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1661; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454595562; x=1455805162; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=0ZGhSFED3JwdOVwmbosTK+4WyFkpS7ow027qexhC4xA=; b=EN9o9PbICnh75tR9tMJuIvrT1uuu7dKCT9sVdYO8GX8tjIKB96EdiG5R rc3EuxTx3NoN4Lc80CzFQFpGLfSKydgAloI9VUTV8ukOkH+USEb7TL/Q3 dk1AoIcrvKn9jgSn9vylQc/c6Mn2yeD9J7/Jc6i4+wahtlue3wuWHlXFt I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D8AQCPXbNW/4kNJK1egzpSbQaIVa5tghMBDYFmIYVsAoE3OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEQQEBAQMBOi0SBQsCAQgSBh4QMhcOAgQOBYgTCA7AVwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREEhhKBbYJKhAIRARw0gnmBDwWHU48eAYVKiASBW4RCiFSOPwEeAQFCgjCBNGoBhnk0fAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,395,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="73805874"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Feb 2016 14:19:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u14EJKZa010198 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:19:21 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:19:20 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:19:20 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Thread-Topic: Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRXyp8JFg5jMe+2U2qEGawv1YH958cQ40A
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:19:20 +0000
Message-ID: <C6FB982A-5EB5-4C84-A1AB-02FCF5D0437A@cisco.com>
References: <20160204090020.4219.39450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160204090020.4219.39450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.202.169]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <326C9B4A93A88A44B9ED101D923D3B21@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/EkFWYDfSDiuCJFUO_X0UvgI0sOk>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "Pierre Francois (pifranco)" <pifranco@cisco.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <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, 04 Feb 2016 14:19:27 -0000

On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> 
> Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I find myself rather unsatisfied by 
> 
>   The SPRING architecture SHOULD leverage the existing MPLS dataplane
>   without any modification and leverage IPv6 dataplane with a new IPv6
>   Routing Header Type (IPv6 Routing Header is defined in [RFC2460]).
> 
> in that the prospects for use of a new routing header, and ipv6
> router/extension header treatment  seem poor.


well, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header describes a new routing header type for SR and,btw, there are already multiple interoperable implementations.

The statement above only reflects what has been already carried out.

s.


> and the potential
> consequences for chaining these for example seem worth exploring before
> electing that course of action.

> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email