Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Mon, 02 September 2019 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.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 7E2FF120143; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 7sQOH-HHaDSX; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D801112013D; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id d25so27793992iob.6; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dMytrujMtyl57cZ2gU7x/D11vI+WFB3ro8FqP5+3dEo=; b=a9wBf7dF3sz2OsZIx9QCc6ThXXmVSMpk9aghTr4FxaJj7evscVW3IqDWNcscRZ98Pu Ayfx/FkjXk6FUaJy55Au/VsYa2f8rSayLKgjMAjomfefcAq1Z8tMgwuH4y09G6lqObjv wFU1muuM3h0wtD9sqe8c47M0OfNyOi6OoALSjN7E4QlqbDKadxbPlHv5xAwaIMlgyPpQ cxc9C/dj1YIgjnP7/P16XY12CEgWdchH91kA4Zzk9OmDc4E33zfnltmUEwX9PdiUanMw hOIpNrDhGT6DTYmrE6BD2mK4Ad72js+TOdctrtQ+h5M71cAIbt/mjs25LkxiSQzbOHtB T43A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dMytrujMtyl57cZ2gU7x/D11vI+WFB3ro8FqP5+3dEo=; b=BjzZY6FshBvadZVHlpkUBFudjxedtDqH7admvS+kDbr+G1+v6pY6zDeq5vZudJiwIk 0agFgH+v0WCdqlNMkkpQ20e/x8fiMXh/B8JHQt82AREx76aWOLAuulnvcyve//vdIRrO AcyqrF5I4kaKfBJncK5nCGsvA/mugE5qUsyiLnMzHwk6LVk2qE3vs9Kl90BvSu1atZak 0w0RoauZ60XWmuwknNUTiHnaVea75u7n6D6HL3CWpg/VH77UAWLn/3Ij83pceTv9r165 ZkPs+BsfqKeS9VEhK5uSR+uFSxwKs/n+XTxQJ+6HMa8zvyLtWANeVPDZEfyYxs8dHnEr lPEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXkVJwKL+xLP+/ogUJ0Q8beUyeVNM9s2uaOkn+RxR7lSxT1T7ha z6AyAF16droqyle/ba2jbrEAUv1V9gV2Zpwhyhs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzG3fP5CdKZ32blpuK1KAXBNurugdiRoeFvINxidbb9pVbAFeFNlplcnWo+OJQdx1I0OYGGfUC8UnWuW51GwaU=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c88e:: with SMTP id y136mr26461930iof.68.1567444197090; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <HK0PR03MB3970C6DCC635E7CD802D65FDFCBD0@HK0PR03MB3970.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB54636A2332FED916A26A6F14AEBD0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3e31873a-278a-2154-0e71-4d820bba323d@gont.com.ar> <4012D854-2F10-4476-951D-FFFE73C5083C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4012D854-2F10-4476-951D-FFFE73C5083C@gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:09:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGTkwbTAKGDH63pM7Gc3_2BRV98E2MLMrUbjmc09Mcv=Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000092af160591950ae9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/N2TXfHMMsz6baSlasGJnmSKZT64>
Subject: Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function
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 17:10:00 -0000

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:07 AM Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Fernando,
>
> On Aug 31, 2019, at 10:09 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:
>
> On 30/8/19 20:24, Ron Bonica wrote:
>
> Li,
>
>
>
> In the scenarios that you mention, below, SRv6 nodes have the following
> options:
>
>
>
> 1. To prepend and IPv6 header, with its own SRH
> 2. To insert an SRH, as described below
>
>
>
> Option 1 is in keeping with the word and spirit of RFC 8200. As you
> point out, Option 2 contradicts RFC 8200.
>
>
>
> So, we should probably explore the motivation for Option 2). If the
> motivation is not sufficient, we should probably standardize on Option 1.
>
>
> My argument would be:
> Folks would do whatever they please with 1). If somehow they feel the
> need to do 2), they should *refrain from even suggesting it*, post an
> internet draft that proposes to update RFC8200 to allow for the
> insertion of EHs, wait for that to be adopted and published, and only
> then suggest to do EH insertion.
>
>
> I have put down my thoughts on the future of header insertion work in a
> mail to the 6man list in May 2017. The mail can be found below
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4MevopH9_iQglUizhoT5Rl-TjRc
>
>
>
> P.S.: Given the amount of discussion there has been on this topic in the
> context of RFC8200, I'd like to hope that there's no draft-ietf document
> suggesting EH-insertion or, if there is, the relevant ADs and chairs
> make sure that's not the case anymore.
>
>
> Yes. If a draft violates RFC8200 and it hits the IESG for evaluation, I
> will certainly hold a DISCUSS position until the violations are fixed.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>

Thanks. It sounds to me the the SR folks are re-inventing NSH in ipv6.

The internet layer is a narrow waist.

My humble opinion is SR has the same real market traction as  LISP and NSH,
meaning very niche, but loud.

They should look at publishing in the experimental track before asking for
the world.

Regards,
Cameron






> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>