IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 26 February 2020 13:05 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 0E3D93A09F2 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:05:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 (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 EINb1-YJEwqk for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (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 226453A09EC for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id w6so2895168otk.0 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:05:43 -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=VvFb9wp+k51LZpRvtAj0ZrmUZnG3fxYiyJ6vjOVbgzg=; b=Gm02xFD2TUHzw7rJm3kB6q7czgHLYSJ5lhRbaG6NzggNr3Q+HyM8bAtqvhvNFjXwol fLsQMnmBF5ap5u33cVnxZtIMBdukE2we5MwqdIMPHZ6TIW/j/P8zrKVkT6I4PEyGDxMj G9ElneNLpvxgzl9g42xwJsbOqNahYKlLpbhhJxhKCGILp2/qBx+6RuOUW4cgLVHHU7Vu Wd+1H7vwIiG2ZlUKtE24BCs1DjkDVQYrJA9RTRIqhKpou2LOP8r4EZkgPSwkAD2JHoKw fl5zxRIf5Kmk10pM0T99V0PpNG1JmZNB5ViYs7a/8VFZv08mIShzwYSbKzh+wesuJZUD L11A==
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=VvFb9wp+k51LZpRvtAj0ZrmUZnG3fxYiyJ6vjOVbgzg=; b=FWDZE0G74U20guOsMvDN54mbdcVWubOHfOyiThgY40NoZlE2UOfokisCsp7nb4E5UZ 7jxfh4ceAVixC9ugoMfrDwIfAIvxL59OgkHI9UT02olj97pgdLRCh1EyWgyeavcnGaz4 c1CNWx9UKnYGa9wrbZTwuvF3DwUPdLRhkhfTGUCLfwqkhK3nvrRLLSPvRgvjKu6f+jJ6 HV1A15VO8Vmbufm9YvG/SB3Og1NQYBoFgoYlBVHSQ8NpWKTBkKGx8Bxyl9IlDT0uAQrR aZ85QeoDMFFwxRXglJJ+iFnxcP23gJwNTT77OdS2w4rrM3552GZea0jWJaekByca91M/ 9fGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVtnkkW7sE6vGn8GAIzN8LTGwvkG4imcGuFmVoHuV/SIdG/tXWl lgsl5Y/b7qHmcTDS90XH8Sk9/IQDr/7lt1LNkRSQQw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw9z52U4prhOZnMkOmALOJwqjWkhQlPJb+Tn8eNOG6Ovt0MRQr8Bkp1cUcOT4uSiulqpQtixDA2dGnxIbwUZ0w=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7083:: with SMTP id l3mr2774244otj.193.1582722343199; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:05:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5c2a4b36-0c59-709e-23eb-00f4aa1ce52f@joelhalpern.com> <9B89F4C2-5594-4D31-8893-21F3F4A0DF6C@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569969EE8D1929E7069E1BB0AE550@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <58ED78D3-9E0C-4556-8853-8754B361DF6D@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB5699D79B1FC40662EE9E95B6AE500@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <81A30B25-9857-467E-85AE-1FE84B6F3197@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2zq0chKx08d10JBNkpa5e8J4MWAJWk+2Qs1DD7y_wkYUw@mail.gmail.com> <05981e2ea71c4b3083ed6e15c7e20641@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2wzk7W4_gy6j+sW=1z+xoyMMxsjnUbZkaf=jcG0zZqddg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wzk7W4_gy6j+sW=1z+xoyMMxsjnUbZkaf=jcG0zZqddg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:05:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHE7XaWKSy=y5-0kz5aOT9vWgMCRmc=WURX12-LX1TOzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000b7919059f7a4349"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/F0uhwDrVXeK0WiKCfhlEdUf0TTE>
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:05:48 -0000

> Somebody choosing not to use AH doesn't mean SPRING can ignore the IPv6
specifications.

I think it sure can and in fact it should.

See there is perhaps key misunderstanding here.

Regardless if folks agree or not with that SRv6 is a new data plane. SRv6
!= IPv6 that's obvious.

It also does not attempt to *extend* IPv6. It reuses some IPv6 elements and
makes sure non SRv6 nodes can treat the packets as vanilla IPv6, but that's
it. With that in mind all of this going back and forth between SPRING and
6MAN to me is triggered by wrong positioning of SRv6 as a new transport.

Sure if SRv6 would be extending IPv6 then updates to RFC8200 would be
needed - but here RFC8200 should at best be informative reference. I am not
even sure why SRH needs to be 6MAN RFC. IETF is designed to build and
improve prior art not be locked by it.

Cheers,
R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email