IETF Logo Mail Archive

[spring] Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6 addressing architecture - was draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?

Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.alston@liquidtelecom.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 C98413A0B5E for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, 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 j3Bjal51zVfT for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-182.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-182.mimecast.com [207.82.80.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B019D3A0B31 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3eur04lp2055.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.12.55]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-88-K9wbbJ3vPmyLgpvfF_j0xg-1; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:53:06 +0000
X-MC-Unique: K9wbbJ3vPmyLgpvfF_j0xg-1
Received: from DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (20.179.47.79) by DBBPR03MB5365.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.78.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2793.17; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:53:05 +0000
Received: from DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::31cd:8171:1d1f:2fa9]) by DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::31cd:8171:1d1f:2fa9%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2793.013; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:53:05 +0000
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
To: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6 addressing architecture - was draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?
Thread-Index: AQHV9+cPM8SkXWxcF02MzvgfE/9ykQ==
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:53:05 +0000
Message-ID: <4F4FF5EC-690F-4C09-9101-98AB2DDFDE0C@liquidtelecom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200113
x-originating-ip: [2c0f:fe40:3:3:ad0a:b218:9601:a89d]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: dc36a638-4ef7-4920-71ae-08d7c5fe326c
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DBBPR03MB5365:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DBBPR03MB5365B000E9449C1BE9BB7668EEFC0@DBBPR03MB5365.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0339F89554
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(136003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(396003)(376002)(199004)(2616005)(8936002)(6506007)(53546011)(4326008)(81166006)(81156014)(33656002)(8676002)(5660300002)(2906002)(110136005)(54906003)(86362001)(316002)(966005)(6486002)(66446008)(478600001)(66556008)(64756008)(66476007)(76116006)(66946007)(91956017)(71200400001)(186003)(36756003)(6512007)(73130200003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DBBPR03MB5365; H:DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: +zRPqDTcavGf7WqNVkoQg/gdLumbfVsYX1ObWdllRZqfzO1pH9VOZ4Mjjfg5Mrk1P/RPD9QC39wKAo6bZ+PXiPi3bhNRdsijInVWT4lLXmWLYY0UceWr181SPUgY5KNv3LXcZQR9XINb9z7uyQqzaNwfgGT04OHE+Sf0GsdnGuVU/rWOuPhz0sTIVS5PMgw0q9jO7BurqTW7x81Mw9UcVw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: liquidtelecom.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: dc36a638-4ef7-4920-71ae-08d7c5fe326c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Mar 2020 20:53:05.2948 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 68792612-0f0e-46cb-b16a-fcb82fd80cb1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: nPWFqg9Lan9d7iCX/41ToG3soJVfHcSI7OONEp6j6eJXMVBfFnxPXOePBq6gc9k3WFPUvMYdR4EKtCJBwqwiMn246G/uTQFPY4JYQOfJp4Y=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBBPR03MB5365
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: liquidtelecom.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4F4FF5EC690F4C09910198AB2DDFDE0Cliquidtelecomcom_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/L3b4vOVVduxKitzhoX_BP7ENeJc>
Subject: [spring] Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6 addressing architecture - was draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?
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, 11 Mar 2020 20:53:15 -0000

Hi Spring WG

On the basis of the below – I must conclude that the issues relating the SID/IPv6 semantics have indeed not been dealt with by the spring working group in the context of the network programming draft – and I would now like to raise those issues in the context of that draft – and the fact that draft-ietf-spring-network-programming violates the address semantic specifications of RFC4291.

Can we please have a proper discussion on this

Thanks

Andrew


From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 22:03
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?

Hi Ron, I made no comment in this thread on draft-ietf-spring-network-programming.

Darren


On Mar 11, 2020, at 2:55 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

Darren,

Didn’t we agree to close issue 66 because draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing header contains no text regarding SID/IPv6 address semantics. If that’s the case, how can you say that closing issue 66 implies WG consensus around SID/IPv6 address semantic proposed in draft-ietf-6man-network-programming?

                                                                                       Ron



Juniper Business Use Only
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:07 PM
To: EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?

Hi Andrew please see issue #66 for the closure record.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/66<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/66__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RN-QFuaCraX6vU74Vusek5FlDyBGgfC2Teh1Vz40nw0PBhWdPtA-SA3t_rxaFg4_$>

Darren

On Mar 9, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:

Hi Darren

>  Hi Mark, the working group discussed the
 > association with RFC4291 and closed it with
 > the text in the document.

Can we get a reference to these discussions please - would just be useful to back and refresh memories and wasn’t able to find them

Thanks

Andrew

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email