IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] State of play as of today

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 02 October 2015 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734711A90AD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 NCTO9M8i7Qgc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) (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 5D49C1A90AC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so7697445igc.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ekNvYDBE7lac8wMu5zTOmBwhPuGteVHwngGFq/S7Uus=; b=QFzQ2+jfrHGQh47UKiv8aXqLjv48OUbfWUahc8QTC5ZgTmgFpo/91ObHImTcectWfx Zvk9uNPDP3MZTGO+x+BnkL9PbsXSq6/9ah7MEQkQ6gboXS/dFHMtS9uxwd7lreDJNuPh /jB+AeXmQtSYFlIap3gIQw3dLSRBkTzOcB/qnOIoPbOf6I7Dpr00y0RNa8NSozYW33+L tzb+fQR1ySCp4xo7uIp7PRMN5BK9ivAfkTWqLQ4aTTWX6Cn0UT9WCWoJMFK3UfN3zh0v rXKltIqAINCjigfABBCRCealMCJBaZ58pDYfPMziT7ulrSpMleyewZcW/OLghehdSP8r N6/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn/oU/7K+t8VGQKHZXYT2EMmaVm7RRIcrFoZ7gZeWu8Fhv8RlAYnFsJ24bOdKTj5c5loHYo
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.118.67 with SMTP id kk3mr1609797igb.65.1443744217703; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.128.94 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <560DBA24.6050206@gmail.com>
References: <71893E8D-913C-4F12-B159-4E522861A0E4@cisco.com> <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B891690C2BE@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com> <41497FF1-E7F3-4A4C-8434-D9BD54E152B6@cisco.com> <560DBA24.6050206@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:03:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S35EAdyeoi1WT8CJdFn2xNcBQ_NaKG5asaepb06Y9-=89A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/TC7ICimpyLzelYqbdpVpOWSrbbg>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] State of play as of today
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:03:40 -0000

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 11:48, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:17 PM
>>> To: v6ops@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [v6ops] State of play as of today
>>>
>>>
>>>> I do have a proposal from Tom Herbert (formerly Google, now Facebook) to discuss https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-nvo3-ila. This is interesting in the context of allocation of a /64 to a host in a >data center. He tells me that there are a few changes (notably a routable interior address) in a version he is about to post, and that Facebook plans some "canary" deployments to test the concepts. I >tend to think it would be an interesting discussion, but have not heard from the working group.
>>>
>>> If Tom could please update the document with an email that does not bounce back when people contact him for his submission, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> He seems to be using tom@herbertland.com
>>
>>>  Certainly, this work could be discussed including the fact whether the consensus is to remain within the 64-bit boundary between the interface-id vs. not for any IPv6 addressing.
>
> I would strongly suggest discussing draft-smith-enhance-vne-with-ipv6 at
> the same time.
>
Brian, I think ILA is mostly a manifestion of the sections 4 and 5.1
of that draft (flow labels are not relevant in ILA).

Tom

>    Brian
>
>>>
>>> Other comments:
>>>
>>> In section5.1.2 , the document says "Since migrations should be relatively rare events,".   If migration is a rare event, is it worth solving the task move problem?  Why not stay with "not to migrate" until the task runs to completion and not work on any ILA?
>>>
>>> The WG  and the author could decide if the document serves the purpose for ILA and task move but keeps away from tenant separation because the security  in section 5.2 and its 3rd paragraph which ends in "not considered a significant risk" is questionable.   I suspect security will take lot more effort.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Hemant
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email