Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 02 September 2019 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 72A80120145 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 07:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 li8cbbXJtxAI for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 07:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D751120110 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 07:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: fgont@si6networks.com
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x82EEZmc024623 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:14:35 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <CAHd-QWtA21+2Sm616Fnw0D-eB7SNb_BeG8-A-MCLLFgTwSpOsg@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB54630831722DE1D3E6C7F872AEBC0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <abded144-7557-1093-874c-0f9ca708af6a@si6networks.com> <BL0PR05MB5458C00081B05584E77DB19DAEBF0@BL0PR05MB5458.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <160e947d-790e-67fb-3366-fdc5f1d34f8c@foobar.org> <CAOj+MMGCfpUxu+Rfgpk4Nhbjp2_PeRb-JnHOi7Ru3Ov085WWRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2w7yGUQUtE474h5pk0=iz+F5dwRHPHDbAscJqHQiP+WuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMH-Vjpbz0=VSDHBMDnDBPDyOCLFzKYFJQO0_7YPPOZcJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zCKQdBydLdOFFAmkZJ3zvtN+mfT4UAtJyrncqCUqpDgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHmLsTCaa_x+GVsLiH5Y+kBu3MBVOTYhE3WpGt8W90c_g@mail.gmail.com> <e02139fe-a06e-7fc0-7d5c-dae1e4010ddb@foobar.org> <CAOj+MMFjpVtJED8vSm_hmXLE2uTwbCE=-pDYR3=Et1=+gTfnfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <4826bf17-7263-690a-8c61-1c5a27641ab6@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 15:14:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFjpVtJED8vSm_hmXLE2uTwbCE=-pDYR3=Et1=+gTfnfA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/GinPmsIROq-D9i3ARU9wD9ZIgBE>
Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond 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, 02 Sep 2019 14:28:34 -0000

Robert Raszuk wrote on 02/09/2019 12:49:
> Yes you are 100% correct.
> 
> The decision to inject any prefix into someone's IGP (or BGP) is a local 
> operator's decision.

It is, and most operators take pains to avoid injecting shared 
addressing resources into their routing domains.  These days it usually 
relates to policy, but that policy is rooted in the painful reality that 
building infrastructure intended for second or third party tenancy on 
the basis of overlapping number resources is something that can and will 
cause catastrophic architectural problems once clashes occur.

So again, I suggest that if it's the intention for the draft to proceed, 
the authors will need to reach out to RIR policy working groups because 
the additional number resource requirements required do not fit in with 
the current ipv6 resource assignment and allocation policies currently 
in place.

Nick