IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 26 February 2020 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 440453A02BE for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:48:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 u5Ntnr2D4Fhe for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:48:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com (mail-ot1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) (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 308093A03EB for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id w6so3011091otk.0 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:48:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6jif/eKEowv4+KfOYF9KE2SVm8dgZVPc+d5kJVgkGvA=; b=NsjN8tZl/D4ptplrduyEadkGQhV/7Vsm7ppyC8Z2ktKi9STviGiiHXF9+Q5FwibBmA ddxQRjWEgLpmiMQIV+4rM3ME+aa7k5p9m+oYPBfHDcBiRfnLw472NfWEEcXDjDXvwcMX 9yLTNjm0P7mdssrkCveSrGo3+ypfsQL3hVFIvqUEWWQ1JcVIugoFHoE+opbuhrJZsFxf dO2S5AueSc54UwswuD1/4SIarbC7x+1fH3MQA0xCEMe0yUVMnB0anCxP9F4BFK0jpb6O 68r9Vev2xUJ/ByTjXB8RpS/UW3wuXu62kxm8KcfdsseMUBju2+7xToxxVIT77pgx2203 Yg8g==
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=6jif/eKEowv4+KfOYF9KE2SVm8dgZVPc+d5kJVgkGvA=; b=tXH1vqWjvMbD1PCds5Nz0mV8yIK2CXaQvau0P3vP+CRxM0KLBkXKfigKmrwJgqOpyw KbzW7LDXdrCx0o00oxNQX06/l+V2hzFNs8dbiniom5E4cbkssDczYiu/1I5yPHZ4WOEi FoxofUlz9tNclieg9/zrTKhN9kdA+g0nfGQQgf0uaEDAJt6c0PtFeIWkB9VD8fup7RXu GSxzQi5L0C0sMHuXwAK8NKh4K+PKrsm2epeb2uMDvTc8zSijIjb5tDT53Xnv6eW8lU67 JRCqTcI2oJV9V1N+d4lk2FQKrKSXmQiN0eC/toiKih5rDUpy+3A4SfYMyPf8fJQ2lGVl BiMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVO+fUabR1kxBkiu9EKB2/Q3IwQiWERtQqZD7VS3rso6S4rvLv1 EO18WpBgdq3DO4aVje4S1Jq0wZcQvMPpeY5JKm6low==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxBToMxl913eLw38NHPgzwaHWItrPAt0FsWCoB7EL0wkrKV430xsHCYpJ51yEJs1W1FZe2AtnzRZwpmU41YG7M=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6a4f:: with SMTP id h15mr3098312otn.86.1582724877563; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:47:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5c2a4b36-0c59-709e-23eb-00f4aa1ce52f@joelhalpern.com> <9B89F4C2-5594-4D31-8893-21F3F4A0DF6C@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569969EE8D1929E7069E1BB0AE550@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <58ED78D3-9E0C-4556-8853-8754B361DF6D@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB5699D79B1FC40662EE9E95B6AE500@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <81A30B25-9857-467E-85AE-1FE84B6F3197@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2zq0chKx08d10JBNkpa5e8J4MWAJWk+2Qs1DD7y_wkYUw@mail.gmail.com> <05981e2ea71c4b3083ed6e15c7e20641@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2wzk7W4_gy6j+sW=1z+xoyMMxsjnUbZkaf=jcG0zZqddg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHE7XaWKSy=y5-0kz5aOT9vWgMCRmc=WURX12-LX1TOzg@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR13MB3066512DE097A10B06BA14D6D2EA0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR13MB3066512DE097A10B06BA14D6D2EA0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:47:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMF6bSY+UijZ6qEtySXgfWe=Cs+sPswx6EE=JzB0xDOu7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001acc8a059f7adaa1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/YUI9a0S2liOGG55V3xw_ogdwHtw>
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
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, 26 Feb 2020 13:48:27 -0000

Thx Jim !

Apologies - I spotted one typo in my mail:    s/ as a new transport./ It is
a new transport./

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:44 PM James Guichard <
james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> wrote:

> +1 and well said!
>
>
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:06 AM
> *To:* Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; Ron Bonica <
> rbonica@juniper.net>; spring@ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern <
> jmh@joelhalpern.com>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcamaril@cisco.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
>
>
>
>
>
> > Somebody choosing not to use AH doesn't mean SPRING can ignore the IPv6
> specifications.
>
>
>
> I think it sure can and in fact it should.
>
>
>
> See there is perhaps key misunderstanding here.
>
>
>
> Regardless if folks agree or not with that SRv6 is a new data plane. SRv6
> != IPv6 that's obvious.
>
>
>
> It also does not attempt to *extend* IPv6. It reuses some IPv6 elements
> and makes sure non SRv6 nodes can treat the packets as vanilla IPv6, but
> that's it. With that in mind all of this going back and forth
> between SPRING and 6MAN to me is triggered by wrong positioning of SRv6 as
> a new transport.
>
>
>
> Sure if SRv6 would be extending IPv6 then updates to RFC8200 would be
> needed - but here RFC8200 should at best be informative reference. I am not
> even sure why SRH needs to be 6MAN RFC. IETF is designed to build and
> improve prior art not be locked by it.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email