Re: [spring] 64-bit locators
Miya Kohno <miya.kohno@gmail.com> Sun, 29 December 2019 07:27 UTC
Return-Path: <miya.kohno@gmail.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 45364120180 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:27:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 hVjZ7sBIiYA1 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC38F12004E for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id j26so30513969ljc.12 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:27:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5nTGHmS1Pgs9LpnTpFamEVvLLTVBlw9dV774wOt1SZM=; b=C3EgbM/WaFw4+a8IAfTRXNlnHy0bcZZznYVCN2ylRMybvY9Q5okhwZRxxubRKRlyky Foc5zCl4l7aj5biny20jgXkhoaFxO+0rt6hF7KoTNLplnT0AYyEQVzEB9CF0OemMofij kHgS/gen6r4aDOfXL57B5bszmPclgSe19Guwo8IlZfQve/6vWPqjeKBaO7jqvJZqrmFH +WCvX9vAVbh3JMvtcxMIJypsDHRiFmdXRdgUmubMy15NvQ/u38jn+NWrv170MKqmgTz5 vIE2ckb4XMpOaUdAaheChJfIgvt9KwLMy3OvvtbP1My/Tgoh0nfuj2DeuSJGhxQaK7+d gOuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5nTGHmS1Pgs9LpnTpFamEVvLLTVBlw9dV774wOt1SZM=; b=R1+fRRky2ho7lHn7hyVGrFFBGe7xN/jjXq05ZVOYDD7MgVNWJKHCyREEsWyTcj39aS aYtwR/431tzY+hErFQR7YcoZj2CFINCiV+ckl4eJQiupHPeLNKuudWDb7KM90jpoMgVY DThB0b/fPHa3ah7czNLz52liRHsC7LZuwlbn8A+urrrNacgg/69NYChaz4Td2pDnBMN4 mR3wPzS21ixXLhqLKg3sbMXrAqGSOrLehEzTzJ2nSTXorwMT1f4JNkIzshPoUU/bYrny WKnERYIoajKRZfthUUp/EhRrU9s1wMM2tZAUMXxW/LBT8APsUvk2R8d7m088ti/YwDZs yaPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU4T4UX/mNo8PXqe+pusciquKtU17Gf/UpAKrsJYjCF0Ua1IfOH oUIPOnh81IYcwTTutR84rSB3upyv2UHZAIzWkM4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxjxlRhZczZ7d4+nOluVEcd50+BFp0zuqxx+zu7aihemVB8D9HM9pa5K3cL/rPVeCNLCZUFUgjWNv7J3cmWvTM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9592:: with SMTP id w18mr32970845ljh.98.1577604430231; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:27:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BN7PR05MB5699D85CC99CB23B1B573901AE530@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2yAH4ECeB+PGRS98HgZHXtTq3iX1x6aMSPjKgS6O1GDAQ@mail.gmail.com> <8f5607c9-645a-ea88-e2a7-a4bed8206fc8@gmail.com> <63F5AA66-AEF8-4278-B98C-D3C53AC5A60A@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2x-5NUYHAzjBAR3je7EoPde=-autOXyta5EvqDydbVMWA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1xZEx6_eZpdgvWAmiopXT-SACR1DM_KSeF_JSDvgSSOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGSbdL2ZP-_uX_464Tov7MV0vu=cmoKpw71-vL8R4HpRw@mail.gmail.com> <069e6021-537c-422a-37da-f090a6ac334b@gmail.com> <DBBPR03MB5415CDB6870E8E6B69522E40EE2D0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHOqJWo+ofewx5LF81zA7sGNGwdBgh3X1CSujZbTw9TCw@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB56995F5D8A02A63E0317A3D9AE2C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMFwK2S0NDVeF-AeTEuLgHJGt6mmVZki6sobuf2EGpQmpw@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB56993D9F5BEEDABC5A40AB79AE2A0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMELEvcnimBBppqMHhuJtgvPFJjDQn1-J06Ro9Dx8=YQKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yrdgWwNTz_a7fHEC+G+WERv789YLtoAjH90BZH-rDW7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMFsz3OX4+6gjEU_J6-Q7ra251j2YFVYjQO1yA6dOr3t2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xDiRXzyDzwmdAzYwk1qB9gUp5QLpMLhZfiqEg5C0Lajw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMFAWsjtSBVR4vEBiV86c80PgJaBjSaAYGuVLNx07XT7zA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG99tenjSRVwY+1JV2D2jz0gnphuGDc9O_nWgDb=dZWzbmFyJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xnqZ8jxYgTicP3n8gKa10WzJvd=vdUjSi_=-VhnBchFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xnqZ8jxYgTicP3n8gKa10WzJvd=vdUjSi_=-VhnBchFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Miya Kohno <miya.kohno@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:26:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAG99tekc7E5_9Rkkhg7uqmkU4BOYkAotY+nRK52wCVZVJz6gqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8fc37059ad2a7ae"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/xnCxxiE3SrXiOevkJBUbG5uoo7c>
Subject: Re: [spring] 64-bit locators
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, 29 Dec 2019 07:27:14 -0000
Yes, Mark, we are talking about network protocols. And what's remarkable is that the "declarative" nature of network protocol can ensure backward compatibility and co-existing possibility between the commodity and the new innovation. Miya On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:13 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, 16:10 Miya Kohno, <miya.kohno@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree with Robert. >> Modern language is generous about type ([*] as an example). C also has a >> concept of "union", though. . >> > > We are talking about network protocols, not programming languages. > > A union is an internal data representation function to save memory. The > access type to that memory is encoded in the source code implicitly. > > In networking protocols that type information is encoded explicitly in > type fields or field definitions themselves. > > > >> The stubborn discussion of IPv6 address will hinder creativity and >> innovation for the future. >> > > When you have a 24 year old protocol (RFC1883) that is still interoperable > with the newest implementations, that has literally been implemented in > billions of devices, and where continued interoperability is critical, > because it's expected to be the most deployed and used protocol of all in > the future, creativity and innovation are naturally hindered. > > That's the price you have to be willing to pay if you want to use and > benefit from a commodity and therefore cheap to use protocol. > > This is why the SPRING approach in a number of cases doesn't make sense. > > Use IPv6 because it is commodity; then propose quite radical and > non-compliant changes that customise the protocol for SPRING's special > cases. > > Customising a commodity protocol defeats the purpose of using it in the > first place - because your customisations decommodify it. > > You lose the scales of economy, the interoperability with existing > implementations and the existing knowledge, history and experience with the > commodity protocol. > > There is room for change in IPv6, but only in certain places, and they > have to be compatible with existing implementations. RFC7217 is a recent > example of that, as is RFC6437. > > IPv6 is like at 24 year old house for lease. > > When you rent it, some rooms can be used for different purposes without > too many issues e.g. a lounge as a bedroom, or a bedroom as a study. > There's enough flexibility in those rooms that they can be multipurpose > (although in some cases a lounge room would not be private enough to be a > satisfactory bedroom, and perhaps too central to the house). > > However you can't make the bathroom a lounge, or the kitchen into a > toilet. Those rooms have fixed and strictly defined purposes and > infrastructure, making them unsuitable for any other purpose. > > If you owned the house you could make those changes - at great expense. > > SPRING is renting IPv6. SPRING doesn't own IPv6. Look for lounge rooms you > can make bedrooms, or bedrooms you can make studies. Don't try to covert a > bathroom into a lounge or a kitchen into a toilet (EH insertion, PSP, uSID, > NH=59 implicit payload ...). > > >> [*] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/#union-types >> >> Miya >> >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:19 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> > I am very puzzled reading those messages what is the point regarding >>>> all remaining bits outside of locator ? If this is to say RFC4291 did not >>>> defined a SID - sure you won - game over. But at the same time I do not see >>>> anything in RFC4291 which would prohibit me to put any bit sequence I like >>>> in the remaining (least significant) bits of the address. >>>> >>>> If you limit yourself to the Interface Identifier portion of the IPv6 >>>> address, you can encode other semantics in that portion that are >>>> significant to the end points. That is permitted by RFC 7136, >>>> "Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers:" >>>> >>>> "In all cases, the bits in an IID have no generic semantics; in other >>>> words, they have opaque values. In fact, the whole IID value MUST be >>>> viewed as an opaque bit string by third parties, except possibly in >>>> the local context." >>>> >>>> While the packet is being forwarded towards an end point, those >>>> end-point semantics are to be ignored, because IPv6 forwarding is >>>> longest match across all 128 bits: >>>> >>> >>> All correct. >>> >>> And that means that if you consider FUNC:ARGs bits as IIDs there is no >>> conflict at all and current SRv6 SIDs are compliant verbatim with section >>> 2.5.4 of RFC4291. Maybe SRv6 drafts should all make it clear. >>> >>> And yes they are only significant to the destination of the packet too. >>> Just keep in mind that destination is an encapsulation destination == each >>> segment end. >>> >>> Best, >>> R. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> spring mailing list >>> spring@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >>> >>
- [spring] 64-bit locators Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Miya Kohno
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Miya Kohno
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Miya Kohno
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] 64-bit locators Erik Kline