IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 29 September 2022 07:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 B43A8C1522B6; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4IlLCAq8B1Yv; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6183C1522B0; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (host-87-4-189-54.retail.telecomitalia.it [87.4.189.54]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DFF01F455; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 872101A0753; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:17:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, spring@ietf.org, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, spring-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-sids.authors@ietf.org, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CABNhwV2M+HHnfmBkEZTOaT32t-jKU4LB_vR5Ex1DkWUOtB0xww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFU7BARixwPZTrNQOuEw3WP-FqUsVwTj7btMTahcMbXm_NqWGw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3AS3bNtXk4BuCbxFdUTp1eKuQ3UeLv-bEhSz9qcdSf=Q@mail.gmail.com> <2f640b1d-3178-c3ca-7af2-cc6059413724@gmail.com> <CABNhwV2M+HHnfmBkEZTOaT32t-jKU4LB_vR5Ex1DkWUOtB0xww@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> message dated "Wed, 28 Sep 2022 23:56:59 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 27.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:17:50 +0200
Message-ID: <377165.1664435870@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/FN9hqCbH72yQW5Ez90mh-snpkwY>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 29 Sep 2022 07:17:54 -0000

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Understood.  Most operators would like to use ULA for SRV6
    > deployments so do we need to carve out block out of ULA space just as
    > we are doing for GUA to conform with RFC 4291.  ULA has is a big enough
    > block FC00::/7 so we could carve a block out of that.  Does not need to
    > be as large a block allocation for SIDs as it would not be advertised
    > to the internet does not require to be globally unique.

I'd really rather that SR6 did not use ULA.
when it leaks, it will be impossible to track the source of the leak.

Not sure which parts of the previous message were Gyan and which were Brian,
but it was said:

> We should qualify the IANA request to make the /16 non internet routable
> identical to ULA addressing.
> If that is what we desire then why don’t we make it standard BCP to
> always use ULA for the operators SRV6 domain.

THIS is IPv4 scarcity thinking.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email