Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

["Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

I believe the /20 example was what Softbank seems to be using for their (very large?) network and use-cases. It’s an example of how much IPv6 space they’ve got from ARIN. A millionth of that for SRv6 indicates a /40 (if I’ve got my maths right). Now, I don’t claim to be aware of Softbank’s current and future use-cases. I don’t think it is a topic for discussion on an IETF mailing list. Perhaps any operator that is genuinely interested in understanding their use of that /40 should approach Softbank (or other operators deploying SRv6). Perhaps some of them will (or may be have) presented at one of the NOGs. I don’t see any side-stepping here.

There is nothing in the net-pgm draft that prescribes an allocation policy. Honestly, I doubt if such a prescription is possible given that it would be up to the operator depending on the size and design of their network as also the use-cases they have in mind for SRv6.

Regarding your concern of “IP Space burn”, I don’t find any email on the mailing list in which you have actually described the issues and problems that you perceive. I am not sure how the WG is supposed understand your concerns or discuss something that is not clearly written down?

Would it be too much to ask you to explain your concerns to the WG in the spirit of engaging in constructive technical discussions? Especially if it is related to the net-pgm draft.

I see rather long emails from you quite frequently on the list … and for this technical point you don’t want to explain?

Thanks,
Ketan

From: spring <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Andrew Alston
Sent: 12 March 2020 16:35
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; 6man WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Pablo,

I’ve clarified these questions many times – and I’m not going to keep repeating myself – we can leave that to the appeal.  So – for now I’ll leave this alone – but I did just want to drop a note and say thank you for indirectly confirming what I thought on the deployment stuff, and nicely side stepped.

Andrew


From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 17:42
To: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 6man WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Andrew,

The threads you initiated describing technical questions on the mailing list have been replied by the authors.
You still have not initiated any discussion or clarify your concerns on the topic of “IP Space Burn” on the mailing list. At this point I don’t see any technical discussion points outstanding on this topic.

Regards,
Pablo.

From: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 11:52
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 6man WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming


First I fail to see in the recording where such promise happened. I asked you for the precise timing but you did not send it.
It seems to me that you are putting words in someone else’s mouth, because the presenter asked you politely to send your comment to the mailer and you didn’t.
Then you are using this fake promise to attack the authors, chair and AD.

Actually – I did send you the timing – please see my email which included a youtube url and a timing.  There is nothing fake about what was stated at the microphone.  Furthermore – the reply to Nick – refers to a /20 – that – is no way indicative of what is contained within RIR policy – not everyone can just lay their hands on a /20.  I also point out – that right now – despite my questions about these deployments – I have asked, multiple times, for information about this.  Those emails – have been met with deafening silence.  Now, normally I would say that what people deploy and what is running code – isn’t that material – but – the day a document is published that makes clear claims to such, those claims become subject to scrutiny and questioning – questions – that are not being answered.

And Pablo,  the issue around RFC8200 – is still very much open – to the point where the WG Chair indicated in his writeup that this was being referred back to the IESG to adjudication – despite your claims that the wording is crystal clear – that is a technical issue.  The issues around the IPv6 addressing semantics – which I raised – time and again – are still very much open – and the issues around address space – where a discussion was promised – in the youtube URL that I sent to the list – has never happened.

Andrew