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

Hi Robert

Understood and agreed. I see what you are saying.

I was just thinking of ULA with added flexibility in mind.

Kind Regards

Gyan
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 1:01 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> Gyan,
>
> SRv6 could use ULA if it would start and stop within "limited domain".
>
> But concept of SRv6 is from day one extended to start and end on end
> systems (user's host, mobile device, sensor etc ...) hence in those
> deployments is must use GUA.
>
> And with that if we are to use GUA in one case we could as well use it in
> all cases and relax need for ULA space.
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 6:16 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 5:50 AM Brian Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No Gyan, fc00::/7 is not available for carving. fc00::/8 is on reserve
>>> for the dreamt-of centrally registered ULA prefixes, and fd00::/8 is fully
>>> committed.
>>>
>>> If SRV6 is important, it could justify its own prefix.
>>>
>>
>>
>>    Gyan> As using either GUA or ULA for SRV6 block provides flexibility
>> for operators, I agree that SRv6 can justify its own global block as the
>> /16 being allocated with this draft.  I think we should augment the draft
>> to add a dedicated ULA bock maybe same /16 size would be reasonable.  Since
>> there is not an IANA ULA registry since ULA is private, as the compressed
>> SID violates RFC 4291, I think maybe a draft at least that defines the
>> dedicated /16 block for ULA for SRV6 use is a good idea.
>>
>> One of the major benefits as I mentioned for ULA over GUA is that ULA is
>> not internet routable and that mitigates any possibility of security issues
>> with SRV6 SID leaking to the internet.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>     Brian Carpenter
>>>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022, 19:45 Gyan Mishra, <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:31 PM Brian E Carpenter <
>>>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29-Sep-22 16:06, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > We should qualify the IANA request to make the /16 non internet
>>>>> routable identical to ULA addressing.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If that is what we desire then why don’t we make it standard BCP to
>>>>> always use ULA for the operators SRV6 domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that a /48 would be enough, but it is required, to
>>>>> conform with RFC4193.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Gyan> Understood.  Most operators would like to use ULA for SRV6
>>>> deployments so do we need to carve out block out of ULA space just as we
>>>> are doing for GUA to conform with RFC 4291.  ULA has is a big enough block
>>>> FC00::/7 so we could carve a block out of that.  Does not need to be as
>>>> large a block allocation for SIDs as it would not be advertised to the
>>>> internet does not require to be globally unique.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> > We would not have to burn up a /16 unnecessarily.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Kind Regards
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Gyan
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 4:00 AM Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:furry13@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Hello,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     This email starts the 6man Working Group Last Call for the
>>>>> "Segment
>>>>> >     Identifiers in SRv6" draft
>>>>> >     (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids <
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids>).
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     The WGLC ends on Tue, Oct 4, 23:59:59 UTC.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >       As the document is closely related to the work in the SPRING
>>>>> WG, we'd
>>>>> >     like the SPRING WG to review the document and discuss the
>>>>> following
>>>>> >     questions:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     - the action items required from SPRING (Section 4.1 and 4.2 of
>>>>> the
>>>>> >     draft,
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4
>>>>> <
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4
>>>>> >)
>>>>> >     [*]. Would it make sense to merge those open issues with the
>>>>> 'Open
>>>>> >     Issues' section of
>>>>> >     the SPRING document?
>>>>> >     -  whether the document needs more guidance regarding
>>>>> routability of
>>>>> >     /16 or such requirements shall belong to some other document?  In
>>>>> >     particular,  shall we specify that it MUST NOT be in the DFZ? Or
>>>>> >     setting 'Globally Reachable = false' in the registry should be
>>>>> >     sufficient? The current idea is that the prefix needs to fail
>>>>> closed
>>>>> >     and not be routable by default.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     [*] The draft currently refers to the individual submission
>>>>> instead of
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
>>>>> <
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
>>>>> >
>>>>> >       - the link will be updated in the next revision.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Please review the draft and send your comments to the list/
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     --
>>>>> >     SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>>> >     ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>>>>> >     Administrative Requests:
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>>>>> >
>>>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> >
>>>>> > <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>> >
>>>>> > /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>>>>> >
>>>>> > /Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>>>>> >//
>>>>> > /
>>>>> >
>>>>> > /M 301 502-1347
>>>>> >
>>>>> > /
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>>> > ipv6@ietf.org
>>>>> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>
>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>
>>>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*