Re: [spring] 答复: IPv6+??

"UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com> Mon, 06 July 2020 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ju1738@att.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 9ADCF3A1762 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 zQ9n7u_uswLS for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 ACC363A1758 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048589.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 066H3J2b012174; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:05:48 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 3242rmehme-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Jul 2020 13:05:48 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 066H5kRF029533; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:05:46 -0400
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [135.47.91.176]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 066H5gae029441 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:05:42 -0400
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 05EAB40169CD; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:05:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.153]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id D6A8B40169C9; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:05:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1BC.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.104) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (130.8.218.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:05:41 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1BE.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.106) by GAALPA1MSGEX1BC.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:05:41 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1BE.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.106]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1BE.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.106]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:05:40 -0400
From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
To: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
CC: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W3NwcmluZ10g562U5aSNOiBJUHY2Kz8/?=
Thread-Index: AQHWUV/XdivlUhERMkWwlNxvQxGzYqj3D6ajgABvg4D//8AkUIAAWOgAgAMyqAA=
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:05:40 +0000
Message-ID: <706487fa8257422a9286048e9e045486@att.com>
References: <E23B5DB3-F364-43CA-817E-DC6099B555AF@liquidtelecom.com> <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937AB113@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAO42Z2xbs=+K51=D5a5Am8-jsWZJ9uNw7AqGYaCFZcR64X2=Sg@mail.gmail.com>, <2712885247024880942670708370826b@att.com> <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937AB448@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937AB448@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.190.247]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_706487fa8257422a9286048e9e045486attcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-06_15:2020-07-06, 2020-07-06 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 phishscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2007060121
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/lx8j00KE9CCIOBgGRnJ44zLTLYk>
Subject: Re: [spring] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBJUHY2Kz8/?=
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: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 17:05:57 -0000

Robin,

              The draft calls out the benefits of SRV6 vs SR/MPLS as the authors see it.  That is fine and is a data point for those considering SRV6 instead of SR/MPLS.  So I guess I am confused as to what we are talking about. If IPV6+ is different and new I would suggest crafting a requirements document similar to what we did for EVPN. See attached..

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7209/

Thanks,
              Jim Uttaro

From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2020 8:09 AM
To: UTTARO, JAMES <ju1738@att.com>om>; Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Subject: 答复: [spring] 答复: IPv6+??


Hi Jim,

I respect the comment from the chair. I propose the following draft (because it is SRv6 work) for your reference on the requirements.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tian-spring-srv6-deployment-consideration-01<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dtian-2Dspring-2Dsrv6-2Ddeployment-2Dconsideration-2D01&d=DwMFbw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3qhKphE8RnwJQ6u8MrAGeA&m=rZlTYAgCetZk13lEzdKbOH06XI9eujWc1XLPq7DNHOM&s=P4NZY3pETadVCQ71xsC7CXEj6vr9ewpJkd1HWuhPFD8&e=>

L

Later there may be more information when update.





Best Regards,
Robin



________________________________
发件人: UTTARO, JAMES [ju1738@att.com]
发送时间: 2020年7月4日 18:51
收件人: Mark Smith; Lizhenbin
抄送: SPRING WG; Andrew Alston
主题: RE: [spring] 答复: IPv6+??
Where are the requirements.. I mean actual ones..

Thanks,
              Jim Uttaro

From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2020 6:40 AM
To: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>
Subject: Re: [spring] 答复: IPv6+??

Where are the IPv6+ Internet Drafts?


On Sat, 4 Jul 2020, 18:08 Lizhenbin, <lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your paying attention to the website. Please refer to my clarification.



a. SRv6 is the technology based on IPv6. In the past 20+ years IPv6 has being deployed. One of the most important drives is the address space. The development of 5G and cloud proposes the new chances for the development and deployment of IPv6. Depending on the native IP reacheability and providing rich attributes based on the IPv6 extension headers, IPv6 can provide flexible connectivity to satisfy the requirements of 5G and cloud. SRv6 is the typical representative solutions. This makes this round of IPv6-based innovations and deployments shows the new characteristics of the times to some extent. Then IPv6+ concept is proposed.  It means the solutions is based on IPv6 and used for the scenarios of 5G and cloud.

b. IPv6+  has nothing with the New IP. It is apparent that the solutions proposed in the IPv6+ are based on the IPv6 and all the standardization work is being done in IETF and has nothing with ITU-T.



I am not sure if it is appropriate to discuss this work in the mailing list of SPRING WG.  More questions and comments can be sent to ipv6plus@outlook.com<mailto:ipv6plus@outlook.com>.





Best Regards,

Robin







________________________________
发件人: spring [spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>] 代表 Andrew Alston [Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>]
发送时间: 2020年7月4日 1:31
收件人: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
主题: [spring] IPv6+??
Hi All,

I came across this website: https://www.ipv6plus.net/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ipv6plus.net_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=xY6EacJ5lx2Wdodq3HVdOJnLu47yv-NeOtF_pims9wo&s=MRwEZihBF6LGmyvanssazkk5goh92USabH9rzxSuIcg&e=>

Now, I wish to clarify a few things.


  1.  This website seems to imply – strong – that Srv6 is not infact IPv6 – but rather IPv6+ - is this the position of the member of this working group or is this simply someones bizarre idea?

[Robin

  1.  This site seems heavily related to the new ip stuff that was presented to the ITU – does anyone here know if there is any actual relation between this and that crowd?

Thanks

Andrew

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_spring&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=xY6EacJ5lx2Wdodq3HVdOJnLu47yv-NeOtF_pims9wo&s=b-d6W4ys7Vc5jHULav7uoajVG1yo_F5vTpaluGS1eIw&e=>