Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Brian, Lots of thanks for a prompt and unambiguous response. Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:13 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Darren Duk

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

Brian, Let me clarify a few things – for my own understanding – I am happy to be wrong here, and if I am just let me know (while what I am writing may come across as statements, it was easiest to write that way, consider the statements clarification questions) – Firstly – let us consider the R

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

IP addresses have been used outside of the strict "identifiers for interfaces". Apart from being used for routing, as a locator and as an identifier of course. Load-balancers / addresses for a service, NAT, NPT66, NAT66, MAP-E/T, anycast addresses... I am sure there are plenty others. Unless Andr

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

Hi Andrew, Please kindly observe that SID can be 16-bit ... how could it be an IP address as defined today ? REF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-04 Please also notice that SID can be of variable length too. How could it be an IP address ? REF: htt

Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Hi Chris, The Binding SIDs have a restriction not to be the last SID in a SID list. This applies to all three Binding SID behaviors defined in draft-ietf-spring-network-programming (End.B6.Encaps, End.B6.Encaps.Red and End.BM) and is indicated by the statements such as "An End.B6.Encaps SID is

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

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, 19:45 , wrote: > IP addresses have been used outside of the strict "identifiers for > interfaces". > Apart from being used for routing, as a locator and as an identifier of > course. > Load-balancers / addresses for a service, NAT, NPT66, NAT66, MAP-E/T, > anycast addresses..

Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Pablo, Chris and all, I have not found the restriction for Binding SID not being the last SID in the SID list in RFC 8402 or RFC 8666. And I think that no such limitation exists in SR-MPLS, where a binding SID can be easily be the last SID in the LIST of SIDs in the SR policy that is used to d

[spring] BESS WG Last Call of draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-05

Folks This is a heads-up that we are running a WG last call for this draft that may be of interest to participants in SPRING, since it discusses segment routing domain interconnection. Please feel free to post any comments to the BESS WG mailing list (b...@ietf.org). The

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

Hi Mark, > I think it serves a very important purpose, which is why I raised it. > > SRv6 SRH says IPv6 addresses can be assigned to nodes, contrary to RFC 4291. > What is the Interface Identifier portion of the address called in that case, > and where is it specified? > > There needs to be an

Re: [spring] [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Hi Chris, Dropping the draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming authors since we are now back to discussing the ISIS extensions. Please check inline below. From: Chris Bowers Sent: 05 March 2020 21:53 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; l...@ietf.org; SPRING WG Lis

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Pablo, I’ve clarified these questions many times – and I’m not going to keep repeating myself – we can leave that to the appeal. So – for now I’ll leave this alone – but I did just want to drop a note and say thank you for indirectly confirming what I thought on the deployment stuff, and nicel

Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Hi Sasha, In SR-MPLS, we have the inner VPN label and then we can have the BSID label. Similarly for SRv6, we have the VPN SID (e.g. End.DT4) and the BSID (i.e. End.B6.Encaps). I hope that clarifies. Thanks, Ketan From: spring On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein Sent: 12 March 2020 16:03 To: P

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

Ole, I do not believe rehashing the architectural properties of IP addresses serves any useful purpose. I agree – and I don’t think anyone is suggesting such. Rather we are questioning if there should be a rehash of the documents that are rehashing the properties of IP addresses. Regards, A

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Andrew, I believe the /20 example was what Softbank seems to be using for their (very large?) network and use-cases. It’s an example of how much IPv6 space they’ve got from ARIN. A millionth of that for SRv6 indicates a /40 (if I’ve got my maths right). Now, I don’t claim to be aware of Soft

Re: [spring] [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) writes: [KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor is the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case or extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So IMHO ruling such aspects

Re: [spring] [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Hi Chris, I've been following that thread 😊 IMHO it would depend on the nature of extension and seems not something that I would speculate about. Thanks, Ketan -Original Message- From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps Sent: 12 March 2020 17:04 To: spring@ietf.org Cc: Chris Bowers ; l.

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi, > I believe the /20 example was what Softbank seems to be using for their (very > large?) network and use-cases. It’s an example of how much IPv6 space they’ve > got from ARIN. A millionth of that for SRv6 indicates a /40 (if I’ve got my > maths right). Now, I don’t claim to be aware of Sof

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Sander, So what is it that you and Andrew see in the net-pgm draft or the SRv6 proposal that lead you to believe such a change in the IPv6 assignment or allocation sizes are required by RIRs? I am assuming this is the same "IP Space burn" topic that Andrew alludes to ... Thanks, Ketan

Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

> On Mar 12, 2020, at 6:06 AM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) > wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > The Binding SIDs have a restriction not to be the last SID in a SID list. > This applies to all three Binding SID behaviors defined in > draft-ietf-spring-network-programming (End.B6.Encaps, End.B6.Encaps.

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy Policy Name Sub-TLV considerations

Hello, Would like to bring back this topic for discussion and inputs from the IDR & SPRING WGs. We need to ask if the "SR Policy Name" object is something that needs localization (i.e. we change the encoding from ASCII to UTF-8). According to rfc6365 "Localization is the act of tailoring an a

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi, > So what is it that you and Andrew see in the net-pgm draft or the SRv6 > proposal that lead you to believe such a change in the IPv6 assignment or > allocation sizes are required by RIRs? Well, your example mentions that a /40 is used for SRv6 in a very large setup. A regular business en

Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Inline. This one is short. Many thanks, Pablo. -Original Message- From: Christian Hopps Date: Thursday, 12 March 2020 at 13:08 To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" Cc: Christian Hopps , "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Yes thanks Brian for that response. Sasha I want to correct one technical error in your email so your understanding is clear. You say “But PSP-flavored SIDs are NOT locally instantiated in the penultimate node, they are instantiated in the ultimate node of the path. “ That is incorrect. A SID t

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Sander, In this context, we are talking about allocations for the provider's infrastructure. This is what is there on the link that you provided To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an LIR must have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or

Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Hi Pablo and Chris: In my understanding, and avoiding the ambiguous reading as Chris from section 4.13 (14, 15) in SRv6 NPG as below; the text as below (the same as S01-s04 in section4.13) May be replaced by s01-s04 in section 4.3.1.1 in SRH draft, which can bring the processing to lead to sect

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi, > In this context, we are talking about allocations for the provider's > infrastructure. No, we’re not. Allocations are the superblocks that RIRs delegate to an LIR. Before being allowed to use address space an LIR has to make assignments from that allocation. It is that assignment policy

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Darren, Lots of thanks for a prompt response. My reading of your response is that in order to perform PSP, the penultimate route must advertise an SID it instanciates as PSP-flavored. Until now I have always assumed that PSP flavor is used with some SID that is substantiated by the ultimate nod

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

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 pre

Re: [spring] [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Peter, I think that the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV should be removed from draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions. I think that we should leave the ability to include sub-sub-TLVs in the SRv6 End SID Sub-TLV, End.X SID Sub-TLV, and LAN End.X SID Sub-TLV in the encodings for those sub-TLVs. I don

Re: [spring] [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Hi Chris, I am repeating the use-case described previously: The IGP drafts covers the advertisement of the B and N parts of the locally configured locator on the node via IGPs. On the receiver side, the IGP may not really do much with this information, however it enables propagation of this inf

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Sander, Please check inline below. -Original Message- From: Sander Steffann Sent: 12 March 2020 19:14 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: Andrew Alston ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) ; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

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

Hi Andrew, Given RFC2460 definition of a link I am wondering which “link” a loopback interface attaches to in your opinion? Jim From: spring On Behalf Of Andrew Alston Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:26 AM To: Brian E Carpenter ; Darren Dukes (ddukes) ; Ron Bonica Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6ma

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

Jim Given RFC2460 definition of a link I am wondering which “link” a loopback interface attaches to in your opinion? I would argue the answer to that is in the name – loopback Thanks Andrew From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Andrew Alston Sent: Thursday, March 12, 20

Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Hi Wang Weibin, What is the benefit to ignore and keep processing to get to the same end result? Maybe you could gain some pps by stopping the processing as soon as you know that the BSID will not be executed and you need to send ICMP. Many thanks, Pablo. From: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)

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

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020, 01:41 Fernando Gont, wrote: > 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 semanti

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

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020, 02:36 Andrew Alston, wrote: > Jim > > Given RFC2460 definition of a link I am wondering which “link” a loopback > interface attaches to in your opinion? > > > RFC 4291 provides a definition. "The unicast address 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 is called the loopback address. It may be

[spring] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-wang-loops-srv6-binding-00.txt

Hi all, We have uploaded a new draft which discusses the concrete mechanisms to embed LOOPS in SRv6 segment. https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wang-loops-srv6-binding-00.txt Segment Routing (SR) uses source routing techniques to deliver the data through a pre-defined path and/or

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

(General comment: I am disciplining myself to minimise responses on this topic.) On 12-Mar-20 21:26, Andrew Alston wrote: > Brian, > > Let me clarify a few things – for my own understanding – I am happy to be > wrong here, and if I am just let me know (while what I am writing may come > across

Re: [spring] [Teas] FW: New Version Notificationfordraft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn-07.txt

Hi Jie, Thanks for your reply,Please see my replies inline with [Ran]: Regards, Ran 原始邮件 发件人：Dongjie(Jimmy) 收件人：陈然00080434; 抄送人：spring@ietf.org ;spring-cha...@ietf.org ;t...@ietf.org ; 日 期 ：2020年03月11日 17:18 主 题 ：Re: [Teas] [spring] FW: New Version Notificationfordraft-d

Re: [spring] Question on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Hi Pablo: I agree with what you said and your intention behind the entire section 4.1 within SRv6 NPG draft, including subsection 4.1.1; But from the entire text of section 4.1 in SRv6 NPG, literally, the processing on packet with active SID being last SID in SRH(with SL==0) will be terminated