IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sun, 01 September 2019 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 D8712120154; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 17:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 hMmBi_YdE4jT; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 17:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFFED12011F; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 17:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (ppp-94-69-228-25.home.otenet.gr [94.69.228.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26E16866BC; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 02:53:00 +0200 (CEST)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Rob Shakir <robjs=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <CAHd-QWtA21+2Sm616Fnw0D-eB7SNb_BeG8-A-MCLLFgTwSpOsg@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB54630831722DE1D3E6C7F872AEBC0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2yC3LO5-TSJK0vdG+FvEJcy7PTfiCVGiRkaiiQRgh1b-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <a3c34a20-eb2b-0f87-8c72-3dc28b88be73@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2019 03:48:16 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2yC3LO5-TSJK0vdG+FvEJcy7PTfiCVGiRkaiiQRgh1b-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/rhgbI6ruuwgYZH0ajJJNPLzj5Xc>
Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond 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: Sun, 01 Sep 2019 00:53:08 -0000

On 1/9/19 03:32, Mark Smith wrote:
> +1
> 
> The value in using a commodity protocol like RFC 8200 compliant IPv6
> for something like SR is that you're gaining from IPv6 being well
> understood, widely implemented, widely deployed, widely interoperable,
> widely tested, and the major bugs have very likely already been
> discovered. It's cheaper to use something that it is already widely in
> use.
> 
> However, if you then try to stretch or go beyond expected use and
> semantics, and violate protocol definitions, you're decommodifying the
> commodity. You've lost significant or all of the value of using the
> commodity protocol in the first place.

I think it's simpler than that: it would be quite "interesting" to have
one wg specify protocol A, and another wg that specifies protocol B that
uses protocol A while violating the very spec of protocol A.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email