IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 09 September 2019 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 34527120020; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 e9Q3KLPu05jm; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CE8612004F; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.107] (unknown [62.74.25.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BD7E86494; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 01:51:32 +0200 (CEST)
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>, spring <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB5463153B47BFE83350C566E7AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ERm4x072JQZQovX0MVcea3=0DOCSESopAXj_SE1vMi8qkQ@mail.gmail.com> <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DFAE9362F9@dggemm529-mbs.china.huawei.com> <F2ADBBE8-94EB-4A45-AEAA-0009B8A17E99@cisco.com> <5d73cf59.1c69fb81.d28d5.322eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <206D05FA-C8FE-43FB-B232-08D5E9421FB9@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <cf830a63-c1f0-7520-0f5e-26e794845f2f@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 23:40:52 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <206D05FA-C8FE-43FB-B232-08D5E9421FB9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/FlzCIuWg0Qww86d53S9zRlIjtKQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and 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: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 23:51:48 -0000

Hello, Gyan,

On 7/9/19 19:58, Gyan Mishra wrote:
[...]
> 
> I think when the SRv6 programming RFCs were written that violated the
> 6man WG RFC 8200 with EH only being allowed by the source node to insert
> EH and no other node when Spring WG decided to make this a requirement
> for SRv6 functionality they should have asked for 6man WG consensus
> approval and at that time RFC 8200 could have been updated to allow this
> one exception for EH for SR insertion by and node along the path.
>  Unfortunately this was not done that way from the beginning and now we
> are trying to fix what should have been fixed from the beginning.

The above is incorrect. EH insertion *was* discussed in 6man. And the
text that explicitly banned EH insertion was added in response to the
proponents of EH-insertion claiming that RFC2460 was ambiguous in this
respect.

We are not trying to fix anything. You cannot fix what's not broken. If
anything, folks are asking for a (major) modification in IPv6 -- with
the proposal failing to answer trivial questions such as "What problem
are we trying to solve?" and "Why are not we solving the problem in
standards-compliant ways?".

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email