Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I wonder if we could / should add a sentence or two related to the 
address block noting that if an operator chooses to use other address 
blocks for the SRv6 SIDs then they need to be extra careful about 
configuring their edge filters to prevent leaks inwards or outwards?

Yours,

Joel

On 10/6/2022 10:34 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Dhruv,
>
>> On Oct 5, 2022, at 12:27 AM, Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Suresh,
>>
>> Thanks for taking the comments into consideration. Snip to just two 
>> points...
>>
>>
>>
>>>     - Do we need to add some text on what happens if the address
>>>     block assigned by IANA is not used in the received IPv6 packet?
>>
>> Dhruv: Any thoughts on this?
>
> This block is not mandatory to use. The packet will be processed as 
> any other IPv6 packet would. Is there something specific you are 
> worried about?
>
>>>     - This text "This would be useful in identifying and potentially
>>>     filtering packets at the edges of the SR Domains as described in
>>>     Section 4.1.". But section 4.1 of this I-D does not have any
>>>     text for this! Do you mean some other document?
>>
>>     This is in reference to the following text in 4.1
>>     " In this case, to allow the SR domain to fail closed, some form
>>     of filtering based on the LOC part of the SRv6 SID is required as
>>     relying purely on the presence of an SRH will not be sufficient.”
>>
>>     Please let me know if I can clarify this further.
>>
>>
>> Dhruv: I got confused because section 4.1 is meant to be only about 
>> C-SID. My suggestion would be to avoid the reference and just put the 
>> relevant sentence there for emphasis and clarity.
>
> Sounds good. Will do.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh