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
>>>
>>