Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 05 September 2019 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 9E9631200E9; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 07:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 as7FXxp5w8xX; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 07:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10988120026; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 07:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (ppp-94-69-228-25.home.otenet.gr [94.69.228.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C0AA86183; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:55:37 +0200 (CEST)
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>, li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
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> <cb2f56f8-acdc-d68d-0878-9609cb3d7b1b@gont.com.ar> <28214_1567694772_5D711FB4_28214_238_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFA9F3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <b83a7060-0517-c6ad-f6b0-bc9e61e4667f@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:55:33 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28214_1567694772_5D711FB4_28214_238_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFA9F3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/S7W_X18A-7D9jmHk9mXr17p95uk>
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:55:43 -0000

On 5/9/19 17:46, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>  
>> From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:18 PM
>>
>> Hello, Suresh,
>>
>> On 2/9/19 19:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> [....]
>>>>> 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
>>
>> This seems e bit misleading. What I would expect is that before any work
>> is published on EH-insertion, the IPv6 standard is updated to allow for
>> EH insertion. (plese see bellow)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or leave the
>> IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has had consensus
>> that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be bad, wastefull,
>> tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go through the whole
>> publication process, and just rely on the AD to keep the "DISCUSS"
>> button pressed.
> 
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has a normative reference to [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion]
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-01#section-13.1
> 
> As such, from a process standpoint, it would not going to be published before [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] be itself published as RFC. And from its name, the latter is intended to be discussed and within control of the 6MAN WG. So I don't think that we can say that it "just rely on the AD to keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed."
> 
> In my mind, this should also be a clear indication that the question of header insertion is (to be) within the control of the 6MAN WG. But you may have a different opinion.

Maybe my mental algorithm has a bug, but: what's the point of spring
working on a document that relies on something that 6man has so far
rejected?

You spend energy on the document and then... just sit on the I-D to see
if 6man adopts voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion? Ship the document
to the IESG for them to review? -- I'm lost, sorry.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492