IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Wed, 11 March 2020 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 921F83A0D94; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:45:10 -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=ham 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 9SLCz-wlYOgz; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7B8F3A0D91; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (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 F213C80C25; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:45:02 +0100 (CET)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <4F4FF5EC-690F-4C09-9101-98AB2DDFDE0C@liquidtelecom.com> <a38c3197-2513-4af6-cb4f-a0a96c082cb9@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <fc7aa0a5-bf57-2407-1b37-06b1833a5abe@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:44:55 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a38c3197-2513-4af6-cb4f-a0a96c082cb9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/d2HXGfbrAlaSrylqpWjod-bc7K4>
Subject: Re: [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 21:45:11 -0000

On 11/3/20 18:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[....]
> 
> However, I can't find anything in RFC 4291 that forbids addresses
> having semantic meanings rather than being pure locators. It goes
> against one of my design prejudices, but I can't find anything
> resembling "Encoding semantics in address bits considered harmful"
> in the RFCs.

Didn't *you* write that document? ;-) : RFC7136

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email