Re: [spring] RFC8200 update?

> interestingly enough MPLS took the same approach

Well not really. As you know, MPLS unicast and multicast have a new
ethertype.

SRv6 folks were just too nice and thought to leverage 0x86DD. I think that
was a mistake. I further think we should fix it.

Cheers,
R.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:44 PM James Guichard <
james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> wrote:

> Hi Sander,
>
> RFC8402 explicitly says in section 8 security considerations that "by
> default, the explicit routing information MUST NOT be leaked through the
> boundaries of the administered domain". The intent therefore seems clear
> that "global internet" does not apply; interestingly enough MPLS took the
> same approach and has been widely deployed for years.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sander Steffann
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 8:25 AM
> To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>
> Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>; Andrew
> Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
> Subject: Re: [spring] RFC8200 update?
>
> Hi,
>
> > In the bearer of srv6 traffic, srv6 domain is only one part of the whole
> packet journey. Because the srv6 domain is trusted by single operator, it
> is no necessary for the outer IPv6 header (for performing SRH function) to
> inherit all IPv6 extension headers specially designed for the initial
> end-to-end IPv6 communication, for example, the AH is not must for outer
> IPv6 header and its SRH. Therefore, the outer IPv6 processing of srv6
> traffic can appropriately relax the restrictions, that is to say, the outer
> IPv6 encapsulation only inherits a part of IPv6 spec.
>
> No. It uses IPv6 and must therefore follow the rules of IPv6. What I
> propose is to update IPv6 to make this possible, but you can't break the
> rules in a standard without consensus that the rules can be changed.
>
> > For example, it is allowed to perform functions such as PSP within SRv6
> domain;  Could we treat IPv6 headers function of internal and external
> layers differently, after all, their purposes are different.
>
> Let's not use implicit definitions of "internal" and "external" layers.
> They don't make sense in a global protocol (and despite your claims that
> SRv6 is limited to a specific domain, it really isn't. It uses global IPv6
> addresses and can traverse the global internet). Let's define global rules
> that apply to everybody instead, and standardise this behaviour.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>