IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6

"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com> Tue, 07 January 2020 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pcamaril@cisco.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 4CDBD12008D for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 01:33:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=aLT8TKp6; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=lPFR87gi
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 O4EODyepFDlj for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 01:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB3BC120019 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 01:33:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9087; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1578389607; x=1579599207; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=x4IJPLLkypDXWkwnX3hKQvYOXC+1GLplmqr2d0Y3NGI=; b=aLT8TKp6cb0mpvMsb7NWpuRj/6GFdIOAqcGdfvvLkKs911zs0TV7S3xr EHboKFcIR5O8JlliKLTcD6h62UHZIOgBx7Roc6EWvD2ApwJVCkZ71b6Fx oGrBAnuIwtuPmInSzGxR3AAxldRe/qr/xOWsAhbS/hZT58ntvonOEps3U 4=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:BODwIhZR3kKi/mL04AQjDX3/LSx94ef9IxIV55w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20gabRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNMn1NksAKh0olCc+BB1f8KavyZCU/Fd5DUHdu/mqwNg5eH8OtL1A=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CGAABJTxRe/5BdJa1mHQEBAQkBEQUFAYFoCAELAYEkL1AFbA5KIAQLKgqDf4NGA4RahiiCOiWTK4RigS4UgRADVAkBAQEMAQEtAgEBhEAZgVIkNAkOAgMNAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFXgECAQMSER0BATcBEQEIDgMDAQIrAgQwHQoEDgUigwABgXlNAy4BoV4CgTiIYXWBMoJ+AQEFgkqCOBiCDAmBNgGMGBqBQT+BEScMFIJMPoJkBIFJOIJwMoIskEGFV4lljyYKgjaWHBuaX6k0AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFSOYFYcBVlAYJBUBgNjRI4gzuKU3QBgSeMNAGBDwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,405,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217";a="698447957"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 07 Jan 2020 09:33:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (xch-rcd-008.cisco.com [173.37.102.18]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0079XQrU004365 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:33:26 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 03:33:25 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 04:33:25 -0500
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 03:33:24 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Pl3n94MkZZkruHPOBuKrwUpTw8szjNoyasOe77DgicvnUUIfYZwAH59fIsn6cs6+EWHFOskAlCy5T/k4FodLmjMhKfAWpKdgN9u7TzEBB3sw9EiVcLuT16Woy1Jjgpkbrsb+R9IRT3sIF9QGU3Uce5YWH9l4HPLlX6uJv+URYVD86APDGsfDvQQtb8Dc0flM5bL2HvQ4pSnb9FniJjk6GpAjbQ4sraHAN4F5K8k8NsR4DbU19lLOPTsiVB77nGANONsNGt6YvS+Wicw+guVUC+lwQWAs19ha0YgohKZuHg9ync1FfHXwQ4J/SZWuLFeuGgdWdpokx0JkiAoA4DRM4g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=x4IJPLLkypDXWkwnX3hKQvYOXC+1GLplmqr2d0Y3NGI=; b=OrCaGhhhg5zpag+MCx8YllsY0OAq09j50b6C7eonugQ1kg3Yttaib2xttvHXwNOnXs0KTXDqUmtRbODimoYLSlvdOyxzM31SNRTIrZnUjSTGs3H8NRQ/3jpJpGaiwIfUhqpCx3zZOOmrFvOsulPnduTs2elrHvDWiNxNoebe2ZFyxKnA/XvPFEGJQZcpbl3UAtTHvajXotYXBQE3rzGQu9ni8I57SeeZPSmcZ7H8xuQDW+QmyNHjJSB4or7choq1XpU+oCT8PTP3M3wkoou+vMAS8OKQgSMASvfb1lKxvilyCUogDAjpfbgpK785Vran/qrgmTMU4biHA1sa10bUqA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=x4IJPLLkypDXWkwnX3hKQvYOXC+1GLplmqr2d0Y3NGI=; b=lPFR87gijuuaogLPeOuh7iWTrG4ijkY8gN2Sl82OUq/rC9GIYZ81u9kzjuoGFMb6hyVTitZLKBQ4CPnMlrus/jC8uxUizQ77XpIOWSFARAA3Yfx6ApU7KTvXvNsngbMUY6mKYhAKnKDy/4tulsyt3aidyRtDh33iK5kaYK1ZLhA=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.169.234.8) by MWHPR11MB1838.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.52.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2602.12; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:33:21 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b04b:c9bb:2378:7a8d]) by MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b04b:c9bb:2378:7a8d%11]) with mapi id 15.20.2602.016; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:33:21 +0000
From: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
CC: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6
Thread-Index: AQHVxTtBCnUJ5T9wFUOlTR4tmYQzLA==
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:17:18 +0000
Message-ID: <048C0650-83A6-4584-90B3-46DCC37B4E57@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.20.0.191208
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pcamaril@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.45]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: edc8cf53-a2c3-426d-762d-08d79354a2fd
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB1838:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB1838CC33055BBB21251727F2C93F0@MWHPR11MB1838.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 027578BB13
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(346002)(366004)(396003)(136003)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(36756003)(316002)(2616005)(5660300002)(86362001)(6486002)(6916009)(4326008)(478600001)(2906002)(76116006)(6506007)(6512007)(81166006)(26005)(53546011)(8676002)(91956017)(186003)(8936002)(81156014)(6666004)(71200400001)(66946007)(66476007)(66446008)(66556008)(64756008)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB1838; H:MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: KaAB7ndqdyQ7izdBqV5gN8rpCxjONUxcS9pY/Ciz9LOsW54284EonG9HclHm7dO9m2dh71fhYhGGmOyyu3qj8ZCfHuJ1Wv7a1lWjoSUMRa57NiMuXTVjWjvg762XIOpM4Ku4Sy4aqgQFQ854sFXp26S52RF2YtQC7H3Im4y9QOznu+HrMwi+dCCXebTNtHajgRuDY11jivenH1jjQqgr9g++9iE4vGiNL7Qu+Ka1nmJ7z0C3AJWmnxs0pwOa6544yrFeMoUX1rwZ/mETZ6nzgMrtpW6vZIF7aRcoeg4p6FTRGNoqpMRuGTecRf5FimnpiKGc6LrV57oWLPU+KuUEZg4CTQ7fqbusHp07fYH0KbWE8hgUnszEmHGMX2qRAnMTIdg0edCFWeHjm2IwD/UD7aD8AHjpVlzrkVkoOnNGtJtFMergnrQ7Ku5tvBv456kW
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_048C065083A6458490B346DCC37B4E57ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: edc8cf53-a2c3-426d-762d-08d79354a2fd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Jan 2020 09:33:21.6150 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: zBg/+l1wrog7L/iNgAUaktL/vbpcM7jamgP3YnPH0tsmcG6dHB6mvnm+wwkRpz7RR1w/DwDGClZj8gB55Zk/cw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB1838
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.18, xch-rcd-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/dX32xsXhZY76hcqbsLPP38RtdgE>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6
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: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:33:31 -0000

Ron,

SPRING has already done this work and documented the SRv6 use-cases in RFC8354 before progressing with the SRv6 standardization.

Further on, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is a Standards Track document.
I fail to see how a cite from RFC8354 or any other text on “SRv6 vs SR-MPLS” standardises anything at all.
Note that we have already removed text from draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (e.g. illustrations) because it was not standardising anything.

Thank you for the suggestion,
Pablo.

From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Monday, 30 December 2019 at 11:08
To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6

Pablo,

Would you consider adding a short section to the draft explaining the relative advantages of SRv6 over SR-MPLS? This section would explain why an network operator would deploy SRv6 instead of SR-MPLS.

                                                                                         Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email