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?

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 12 March 2020 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 AC7073A0C87; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 sfV_HesCpu29; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1A7A3A0C5A; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4532E4C; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:00:31 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1584010829; bh=BdX+pTVMh8J60GFJ4uKO9E8lFy6NC2fZfiGectmPENk=; b=H SjllUxCKZ2ghQLZPQ5hzI7BY4ax5xzc3rdY6xHT+fqHazsjIzMPnsBIVkeDeoDde vcmHLSUkccDJvIOVEAJvacNA4BS0IPJQzTEDJ5rlnUmwuoDc1UNy5CIAutDI8S+u xKtXWxxF2sFOE6bDlCRZY4j6Xf/my3GiK6pwvt0cb4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id IqvdA-JkQ64n; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:00:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:9e0:4:12:70e9:5c77:14c9:5b54] (unknown [IPv6:2001:9e0:4:12:70e9:5c77:14c9:5b54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4A603C; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:00:28 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xuSBMv5Lzb7xbaTxAmKOUzQ0x80g5M2daBV3qEBDorKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:00:28 +0100
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E83FFFDA-9692-4783-80F7-5141157CDAAA@steffann.nl>
References: <4F4FF5EC-690F-4C09-9101-98AB2DDFDE0C@liquidtelecom.com> <a38c3197-2513-4af6-cb4f-a0a96c082cb9@gmail.com> <DBBPR03MB541585909C4D92325A69F1EFEEFD0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <4B50496C-F75D-4858-8FAA-947E2A38136B@employees.org> <CAO42Z2xuSBMv5Lzb7xbaTxAmKOUzQ0x80g5M2daBV3qEBDorKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/fzzS26_r57J7OgWSik1VX3VSxwA>
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:00:38 -0000

Hi Mark,

> I think it serves a very important purpose, which is why I raised it.
> 
> SRv6 SRH says IPv6 addresses can be assigned to nodes, contrary to RFC 4291. What is the Interface Identifier portion of the address called in that case, and where is it specified?
> 
> There needs to be an update to RFC 4291 if IPv6 addresses can now be assigned to nodes.
> 
> I think that RFC 4291 requires that SRv6 requires implementations configure the SID prefix on a virtual or physical interface, rather than leaving it to be an implementation choice.
> 
> It also means there is then no need for a special case SR FIB lookup algorithm, as described in SRH ID 4.3, as the existing, general purpose and all cases IPv6 FIB lookup will work without modification.

Sounds like decent engineering decisions befitting the E in IETF to me!

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email