IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Sat, 07 September 2019 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 66AA8120137 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 09:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 m92nvozMtePd for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 09:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (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 8F9C21200EF for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 09:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id f19so9345008eds.12 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Sep 2019 09:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=89bdgRonovMcDm1FTyY3HFypsoJf4vfXKZC75loPPj8=; b=XO1CoD4CvVIHle1sBuipniabqG7mIGCm7mqwBZvjrRfxTHi1+STv5yyV2oUhzauBL/ FyN/fY+JlaF5azOkQp1fCs1pNi9fRtWD47Hyuk/Ca6GDvZiIJ8TmSrUHLuVKCo2JgIET LvCwGoOlQWpvpFrZqr8tZKsiwYpTNY/S6uqDmDns5C0DiFN1MxeTbiwzL7LJJPgjpxAI i6yRx7cUJlnu3/60+u7toZ16FXoNbglffkaKKJA6fvXZrh2drYny/Ase1Wp8kAA4GJwl 6+hDBK+WhB5i1mY37mTmoGn0Hc9mk4/CwpTy3w5WvUfAcFiCn29/x8PiZuAUb9z4Ktid 4/iA==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=89bdgRonovMcDm1FTyY3HFypsoJf4vfXKZC75loPPj8=; b=XPqftHrohEfsTNcQgVIH5maWRfgEhEQJbvlRMOQ1faeNIQfKHPKj15VEeS4SQNIPRt 3B39pXBCmfPVKmoF+O9OuWb+FhIQ+45FVS2TgFwkIuxp0rn/YDiP99LdSsRHw7jSYkjb tcQjCyQs+B+62Xl1dm4CSnmL/aXEzCJYTiYsj0pPBv+2OFaUiQTLsFyWjKM+apFb4G8x oWpOFPJur4GY3YFCgEidLLNe6AtURY0XMpLOrRYY8RI3sakYLTKPvHJWWaub8ba1QHua IKBSmqLV2ZI0Y2z/fCWUq4g6mQMf2RQK3NYLLuAojLGqo1XdN/EcEZ61VfQSWB2GOJfK lf6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUe3tafHVckDb2G8XgQpPOFq6Efhs+G/nd6c0shm20HQ/lQ0RIj BebM2Rk+D5ch1hpc7S/kQ4rErJDzfN2h/79+I4DA6g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwSKiTcpg/nVmc1LG/SjfW3T8kDw5RtHQVGXfAaMAM+Wf3/WTyPKZozQUjU7xat3wDVgOhrPdn8MB2DRRHdONI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b808:: with SMTP id dv8mr3098283ejb.119.1567874474986; Sat, 07 Sep 2019 09:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR05MB5463153B47BFE83350C566E7AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB5463153B47BFE83350C566E7AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 09:41:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S366MBTKKhYVkzwhtNU1kpXwq5gAB_5LL1s_zs46oXP7AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/krXI9bhFc9AYXgPrEZbgz1oGVTY>
Subject: Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and 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: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 16:41:19 -0000

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:08 AM Ron Bonica
<rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> We have explored many facets of SRv6 and SRv6, sometime passionately. I think that this exploration is a good thing. In the words of Tolkien, “All who wander are not lost.”
>
>
>
> But it may be time to refocus on the following:
>
>
>
> For many operators, SRv6 is not deployable unless the problem of header length is addressed
> Many objections the uSID proposal remain unanswered
> SRv6+ offers an alternative solution
>
>
>
> Given these three facts, I think that it would be a mistake to discontinue work on SRv6+.
>
+ 1

I'd suggest a fourth fact. The packet format of SRv6+ is much simpler
than SRv6 and the protocol works better with existing mechanisms and
protocols of IPv6 like Destination and HBH options, as well as AH. It
doesn't depend on extension header insertion and there's no need to
have multiple routing headers in the same packet.

Tom


>
>
>                                                                                    Ron
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email