IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn> Sat, 01 October 2022 02:24 UTC

Return-Path: <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>
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 BD55EC14F743; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 7uLkwg9ZMCqP; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.220]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE57C14F73F; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.48:47398.1918142988
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-114.250.182.242 (unknown [172.18.0.48]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id CEE642800B6; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 10:24:13 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 66040161@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([114.250.182.242]) by app0024 with ESMTP id ed6a588f99c44fe4976bf34c3bc19560 for furry13@gmail.com; Sat, 01 Oct 2022 10:24:22 CST
X-Transaction-ID: ed6a588f99c44fe4976bf34c3bc19560
X-Real-From: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 114.250.182.242
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 10:24:10 +0800
From: Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, spring <spring@ietf.org>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-sids.authors" <draft-ietf-6man-sids.authors@ietf.org>, spring-chairs <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <CAFU7BARixwPZTrNQOuEw3WP-FqUsVwTj7btMTahcMbXm_NqWGw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.24.96[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <202210011022164739921@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart721521168111_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/KRX0gzsGnE09mF9_R5PBjsXp8xA>
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: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 02:24:47 -0000

Hi，folks
I support the progress the draft for its publiction.  In addition, I have the following suggestion and comment,
I suggest that the title of the draft be changed to better reflect its purpose and content. The current title seems to be an explanation of a terminalogy of SRv6. In fact, this draft mainly introduces the behavior of SRv6 SIDs and the relationship between SRv6 SIDs and IPv6 addressing architecture.
It is mentioned in section 5 that "allocate some address space that explicitly signals that the addresses within that space are not intended to comply with [RFC4291].", I‘d like to know where to Signal in the network? Is any new protocol needed to signal?

Best regards
Chongfeng


xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
 
From: Jen Linkova
Date: 2022-09-17 16:00
To: 6man; spring
CC: 6man Chairs; draft-ietf-6man-sids.authors; spring-chairs
Subject: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids
Hello,
 
This email starts the 6man Working Group Last Call for the "Segment
Identifiers in SRv6" draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids).
 
The WGLC ends on Tue, Oct 4, 23:59:59 UTC.
 
As the document is closely related to the work in the SPRING WG, we'd
like the SPRING WG to review the document and discuss the following
questions:
 
- the action items required from SPRING (Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the
draft, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4)
[*]. Would it make sense to merge those open issues with the 'Open
Issues' section of
the SPRING document?
-  whether the document needs more guidance regarding routability of
/16 or such requirements shall belong to some other document?  In
particular,  shall we specify that it MUST NOT be in the DFZ? Or
setting 'Globally Reachable = false' in the registry should be
sufficient? The current idea is that the prefix needs to fail closed
and not be routable by default.
 
[*] The draft currently refers to the individual submission instead of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
- the link will be updated in the next revision.
 
Please review the draft and send your comments to the list/
 
-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
 
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email