IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6 addressing architecture - was draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 14:40 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 7E9E03A089C; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:40:49 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 TLhId--_5iRG; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 730D63A088D; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (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 42D2F80809; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:40:42 +0100 (CET)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <4F4FF5EC-690F-4C09-9101-98AB2DDFDE0C@liquidtelecom.com> <a38c3197-2513-4af6-cb4f-a0a96c082cb9@gmail.com> <fc7aa0a5-bf57-2407-1b37-06b1833a5abe@gont.com.ar> <f83272c1-8c66-ed03-02c0-dab5dd75e0a3@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <766cb80e-586b-61bd-c60b-a50ade068bb7@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:40:35 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f83272c1-8c66-ed03-02c0-dab5dd75e0a3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/xYPWTQAQPJ8Ie-BNbA-fcGsbJ1w>
Subject: Re: [spring] Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6 addressing architecture - was draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture?
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:40:50 -0000

On 11/3/20 23:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 12-Mar-20 10:44, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 11/3/20 18:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> [....]
>>>
>>> However, I can't find anything in RFC 4291 that forbids addresses
>>> having semantic meanings rather than being pure locators. It goes
>>> against one of my design prejudices, but I can't find anything
>>> resembling "Encoding semantics in address bits considered harmful"
>>> in the RFCs.
>>
>> Didn't *you* write that document? ;-) : RFC7136
> 
> Well yes, in the context of IIDs used for SLAAC etc. But that's a bit more
> narrow than what we are discussing here, I think. I assume that SLAAC is
> not involved.

Isn'tpart of the rationale for RFC7136 that there are actually so many 
different ways to configure addresses that you cannot even assume SLAAC? 
(e.g., see the example on /127s for point-to-point links)



> Good catch, though ;-)

;-)


-- 
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