[spring] Re: IPR confirmation for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar PGP Fingerprint: 7F7F 686D 8AC9 3319 EEAD C1C8 D1D5 4B94 E301 6F01 ___ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org

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

m that this text is violated. > - Why have _you_ filled an errata against RFC 8200, in order to change the > technical content of this section, if you don't agree that one may red " > Destination Address field of the IPv6 header" as the IPv6 address present in > the Des

Re: [spring] Penultimate Segment Popping and RFC8200 (Was Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping))

;> ignore it, declare consensus, and ship and request publication of this >> document. > > Noted. > I'm not ignoring it. Quite the contrary I'm the one engaging the discussion > with you in order to understand the real

Re: [spring] Non-final destination address (was Re: Penultimate Segment Popping and RFC8200 (Was Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

On 11/12/19 19:04, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Fernando, > Answer inline. > >> On Dec 7, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> On 7/12/19 04:19, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >>> (responding on spring mailing list) >>> >>> Hi Fernand

Re: [spring] Non-final destination address (was Re: Penultimate Segment Popping and RFC8200 (Was Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

On 12/12/19 22:56, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Fernando, > >> On Dec 11, 2019, at 7:22 PM, Fernando Gont > <mailto:fg...@si6networks.com>> wrote: >> [] >>> >>> RFC8200 *clearly* speaks about the possibility of the destination >>> addr

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06.txt

t and fwd based on the original DA.  >> >> Seems very simple :)  > > Right, but the language in the PSP sub-section does not talk about > decapsulation. Because it's not. :-) They are deleting an EH. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

of thought any further The fact that this is still going on is at least alarming. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

t a formal specification update if they mean to change IPv6 -- as opposed to try to circumvent the spec for the n-th try. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___

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

RFC publication. And eventually can led to errata, bis document, deprecation… So... is the plan to ship a document that violates RFC8200? Should participants stop wasting time in constructive comments, and rather work and prepare to submit a formal appeal, instead? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

only works based on the DA -- there's no other way to specify waypoints. If you claim otherwise, that can be, at best, a major misunderstanding of how IPv6 works. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945

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

probably missed the "small" detail of having rough consensus to change an existing spec. Just sayin'... -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

t down if it wasn't being pushed by a big vendor. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

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

tion (i.e., outside of a small group of big vendors) are highly discouraged from participating at the IETF. It is a shame we have had to insist on this so much. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

g technology. I have technical concerns about the proposal (expressed ad nauseam), and also concerns about how this process has been going on. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 __

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

t the document. I simply asked the existing specifications be complied with. It's a waste of time to be rehashing the same discussions all the time. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

of RFC8200. (I don't remember of the top of my head if PSP was the only part of the document violating RFC8200, hence my general comment). -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 __

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

ata to RFC8200 which clarifies the intended behaviour: * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5933 (that's what Errata's are for, after all... and it should be clear that the EH processing part, overall, needs improvements). Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-m

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

protocol in your network) and aiming at consistency in our specs. We are a standards organization. If we can't keep our specs consistent, and we violate our specs at will, I'm not sure our work will be taken seriously. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6netw

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

On 27/2/20 04:51, Dirk Steinberg wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:45 AM Fernando Gont <mailto:fg...@si6networks.com>> wrote: Hello, Eric, On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Writing this without any hat, > > Please note that on the logi

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

On 27/2/20 04:51, Dirk Steinberg wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:45 AM Fernando Gont <mailto:fg...@si6networks.com>> wrote: Hello, Eric, On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Writing this without any hat, > > Please note that on the logi

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

Bruno, On 27/2/20 05:41, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Fernando, -Original Message- From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:45 AM Hello, Eric, On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: Writing this without

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

d seems to be unfair with participants, and a dis-service to the group. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ spring mailing list sprin

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

anything. And that's what Errata's are for. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

interested reader, a longer explanation of the issue: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sbb95BqdPifuRb_NPc3aeiqBbfM/ Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

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

I was clear that it needed to be removed for it to progress from 6man. The authors removed the insertion mode from the draft. No, we are not clear: PSP does extension header removal. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com P

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

ite/modification privilege on the text in this document, and I'm not part of the authors email alias, this would not be ideal for me to take the decision to forward this document to the IESG. I've discussed this with our AD (Martin) and he agreed to make the formal decision to send the

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

. I'll be contacting many of you during the next few days to get the text together. I also find the behaviour of the WG chairs does not befit their responsibilities. I agree. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7

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

The concerns of this document violating RFC8200 were dismissed by stating that the AD had not accepted the erratum I had submitted. Clearly, if Bruno had meant "not processed", he couldn't have dismissed the erratum like that. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar |

Re: [spring] RFC8200 update?

the current architecture. Rather than focusing your energy in making your case for changing it, all these discussions have been wasting everyone's time trying to make each of us believe that these behaviors are currently supported by IPv6. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mai

Re: [spring] PSP and a logical application of RFC8200

be fixed (this is not the only bug in the EH-processing part of RFC8200, as noted by Brian, myself, and others). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 __

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

the same comment if someone had flagged the same situation for any other document, and a co-author/contributor was shepherding the document or calling consensus. As noted, I disagree with your declaring of consensus to move this document forward. But I provided a rationale for my disagreement, and never linked the outcome of the consensus call to the aforementioned conflict of interest. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

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

act that the errata was marked as "held for document update" days *after* you made your decision should be a datapoint. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 __

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

On 2/3/20 14:28, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Fernando, From: Fernando Gont [mailto:ferna...@gont.com.ar] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 6:14 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; S Moonesamy; Martin Vigoureux; Suresh Krishnan Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6

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

a proceed like this. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

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

__ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring . -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6netw

Re: [spring] PSP and a logical application of RFC8200

should be updating RFC8200, and probably even the segment-routing-header I-D. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf

Re: [spring] PSP and a logical application of RFC8200

removal of IPv6 extension headers. This violated RFC8200 that prohibits such behaviour, and also violates the specification of routing headers. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25

[spring] Un-addressed issues in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

-R] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/eSP4xVYVgjtCmAMGMkqHedv80jU/ [SID] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2ApHpreqPTS689pAEyhiZEdTf7k/ [SR-V] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Xrcclo0s4pnug9upG9rUinYMv1I/ Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks

Re: [spring] PSP and a logical application of RFC8200

because the current destination address of the incoming packet is the address of the node executing the PSP behavior. A node that does PSP essentially processes the SR header twice. How is that compliant with draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header itself? -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mai

Re: [spring] PSP and a logical application of RFC8200

7;t. If it is, RFC8200 should have an explanation of how PMTUD and error reporting works. And it doesn't have one. In that light, I'm curious how folks can state that eh insertion/removal is allowed. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com P

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

On 3/3/20 12:49, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Fernando From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:23 PM To: Martin Vigoureux; spring@ietf.org Cc: 6...@ietf.org; 'i...@ietf.org'; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programmi

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

sides, the datatrackers lists the document as "in WGLC". Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ spring mailing list spring

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

. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

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

aimed consensus. Besides, the datatracker lists the document as "in WGLC", as opposed to "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" or "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up". Last, but not least, are you planning to do a second WGLC? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fern

[spring] Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?

u claimed consensus. Besides, the datatracker lists the document as "in WGLC". So: What's the status of this document? And.. are you planning to do a second WGLC? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9

Re: [spring] Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

s/document-writeups/document-writeup-working-group-documents/ be rephrased to something else? At least for non-native English speakers, the phrase "Has anyone threatened an appeal" gives Appeals a very negative connotation... (Is a formal update to RFC4858 needed for that?) Thanks!

Re: [spring] Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?

Folks, Ping? On 6/3/20 06:25, Fernando Gont wrote: Marting & Bruno, May I ask what's the status of this I-D?  - On one hand, both of you declared consensus to move it forward. On another hand, the authors keep making changes to address comments (good) so what the wg will shi

Re: [spring] Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?

e they were dismissed during WGLC. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?

hey issues they raised have been addressed. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.o

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

in address bits considered harmful" in the RFCs. Didn't *you* write that document? ;-) : RFC7136 Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 __

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 d

[spring] Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15 (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15.txt)

rafts/ ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076

Re: [spring] Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15 (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15.txt)

Ping On 31/3/20 03:31, Fernando Gont wrote: Folks, May I ask what's the status of this I-D, and what are the next steps? Another WGLC? Ship to the IESG? Thanks, Fernando On 27/3/20 14:42, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Int

[spring] What's going on in SPRING WG? (Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming)

the community, then concerns are addressed, and *then* you declare wg consensus?) Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list s

[spring] Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

y and openness). * Appellants: Fernando Gont Andrew Alston Sander Steffann * Description of the Dispute Recently, Spring WG consensus to progress draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming was declared. However, we believe that major concerns raised as part of the WGLC of this document rem

Re: [spring] Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 IETF IPv6 working group mailing list i...@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https:/

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

w" vehicle could run faster, while ignoring that other folks and vehicles need those very same roads to be safe and reliable. P.S.: Sorry, I couldn't help it. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

is a "call for adoption", not a "call for publication". Once a document is adopted, it typically goes through multiple revisions, is subject to WGLC, IETF LC, and IESG review. So I'm not sure why you are implying otherwise. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-m

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

above comment is meant neither in favor nor against CRH, but rather a reminder that source routing existed well before Spring, RFC8754, and others, and, as a result, well before Spring monopoly on routing headers (?) was declared. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.co

Re: [spring] Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

jection #3). For the sake of transparency, while I haven't talked to my fellow Appellants about your response, I for one plan to Appeal to the IAB to resolve this issue. That said, I'd appreciate your response to the comments made above. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail

Re: [spring] Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hello, Alvaro, On 3/6/20 15:29, Alvaro Retana wrote: On June 3, 2020 at 1:16:48 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: []> ... Note: I fail to see your analysis regarding technical objection #3: Your analysis focuses on RFC8200 (the focus of technical objection #2), but doesn't even mention

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

t does not describe “how” since that is clearly outside the scope of this document and part of the individual routing protocol extensions. (17) [nits] s/an network operator/a network operator s/one billionth and one millionth of the assigned address space/one billionth and one millionth of the available address space s/packet's h

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

ay want to [PC] enable ICMPv6 packet processing for OAM purposes. [] -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerpr

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

chitecture is to be changed, the IETF as a whole should be involved (since that would probably be even out of the scope of 6man). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: and updating 8754?

nt, one does not need to worry about it when implementing 8754.  Based on that and my understanding of "updates", I would not expect this document to assert that it updates 8754. Yours, joel On 10/1/2020 3:10 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: Pablo & IESG, May I ask why, if you are g

Re: [spring] [v6ops] FW: New Version Notification for draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01.txt

bel value MUST be restored." Maybe this comes from the time when SR considered header insertion? Anyway, I agree that the text should be modified in this respect, since, as Gunter noted, there's no FL being modified, since it's a new (encapsulating) packet. FWIW, I also think t

Re: [spring] [v6ops] FW: New Version Notification for draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01.txt

ioned. If eventually it is allowed, a new (possibly updating this one) doc could address the topic. Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

o EH insertion. P.S.: Given the amount of discussion there has been on this topic in the context of RFC8200, I'd like to hope that there's no draft-ietf document suggesting EH-insertion or, if there is, the relevant ADs and chairs make sure that's not the case anymore. Thanks! C

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

f.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > ---- > -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

ed and forwarded and how much the use of > shorter SIDs would improve the deployments . > >   > > For both of these sets of feedback if possible, please post this to the > SPRING WG. If the information cannot be shared publicly, please send it > directly to the chairs & AD (Martin). > >   > > This call for information will run f

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

t; commodity. You've lost significant or all of the value of using the > commodity protocol in the first place. I think it's simpler than that: it would be quite "interesting" to have one wg specify protocol A, and another wg that specifies protocol B that uses protocol A while

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

process, and just rely on the AD to keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed. Put another way: what'd be the rationale for having a draft-ietf and have the corresponding wg ship the document with something that clearly goes against IETF consensus, and that the relevant AD has declared that w

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-02 The short version of the question would be: Does any of these I-Ds, and in particular, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (a wg item) propose or suggest to insert EHs in the network? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.c

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

On 4/9/19 05:23, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Fernando, > >> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Fernando Gont >> wrote: >> >> Hello, Suresh, >> >> On 2/9/19 19:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote: [] [] >> >> Since there have been plenty of att

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

e was consensus, ignoring the spec and doing whatever one pleases is not the way to go. Firstly, make e the case for updating RFC8200. Then come up with the proposal to fiddle with packets in the network. P.S.: I've never been into the camp of protecting X (whether rfc8200 or any other do

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

would seem to be an indication of issues in the standardization process -- we publishing specs that not even us comply with doesn't seem to look nice. Doing this kind of major surgery (EH insertion) after elevating IPv6 to "Internet Standard" would bring another set of uncomfortable ques

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

tf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis/shepherdwriteup/ Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

pecifications it does not "control"? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

you don't do that? > > - Does it break end to end transparency? Is IPv6 an end-to-end protocol if you allow EH-insertion in the middle of a network? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

mes we have not been that lucky, and did get slapped with RFCs or "IPv6 has not been designed to support that".. no matter the technical merits. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

he spring wg's charter to specify how IPv6 works. It should be done in 6man (or not even, because that's a major modification, and not really "maintenance"). The only book I'm throwing is: proposals from big vendors should follow the same procedures as those from mere mortal

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

ments apply as laws and slap people over >> the head with those... > > You made me look to see if I could find the heaviest RFC. It seems to be RFC > 5661, at 615 pages, which I think would be 1.7kg if printed double sided A4. Jesus! And I thought the HTTP spec was already to

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

or you are not sourcing the packets, and hence are doing insertion. And EH insertion is prohibited by RFC8200. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ s

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

elt I had a strong case to do so. But most of what I've seen in terms of EH-insertion is essentially trying to impose a vendor's agenda on everyone else, igonring standards and IETF consensus at will. *This* is what this discussion is about. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg..

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

On 5/9/19 17:46, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > Fernando, > > >> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont >> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:18 PM >> >> Hello, Suresh, >> >> On 2/9/19 19:07, Suresh Krishnan

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

cket, and you put your own address in the SA of the packet, and encapsulate what you received in the IPv6 payload, you're free to generate as many EHs as you wish. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprin

[spring] IPv6 EH-insertion (Re: Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function))

t in the charter of spring wg to update? (as far as I understand). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

bidden by RFC8200 We have wasted way too much time and energy with all the methafores and curious interpretations of standards by folks pushing and/or supporting EH insertion, really. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.co

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

; >    before a Routing header and once before the upper-layer header). > > Of course. I was mostly meaning that if you encapsulate, then the resulting packet can contain an EH, because you'd not be *inserting* and EH in an existing packet, but rather creating a brand new one. Of

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

here with respect to any intermmediate box. segment endpoints, unless they encapsulate the packet in a new outer packet, are still intermmediate systems. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 22:30, Ole Troan wrote: > > >> On 5 Sep 2019, at 21:03, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> We have wasted way too much time and energy with all the methafores and >> curious interpretations of standards by folks pushing and/or supporting >> EH insertion, r

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

nt that fact. Among the possible options is that EH-insertion is never worked out. In which case, what's the point of basing something on EH insertion when the status quo is that EH insertion is not allowed, and there does not seem to be any indication that that will change anytime so

Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

On 5/9/19 23:26, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote: > inline. > >> On Sep 5, 2019, at 4:01 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> On 5/9/19 22:52, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote: >>> Hey Fernando, since you’re lost, here are some more waypoints to help >>> you find yo

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

ed to encap/decap into a new packet? I asked this question a number of times, and nobody answered. Rumor on the corridors had it that it had to do with one specific vendors having issues (of some sort) with implementing this with doing encap/decap. -- but that's the closest that I got to a

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

e random bits we added into the spec, because we had nothing else to do. And having us to find if EH-insertion breaks anything (which was already discussed ad nauseam on 6man), rather than the proponents making a case about why they need EH insertion in the first place. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

the letter and the spirit of the standard. And the proposal never even commented why encap/decap is not a feasible solution, instead of EH-insertion. (the most basic content of your item #2 above). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint:

[spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Folks, I have one specific question regarding this I-D: What is the motivation for doing EH-insertion, instead of creating a new packet with the necessary EHs, and include the original packet in the payload? Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP

Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

ferring to already have an alternative specification with encap/decap, but this document proposes to use EH insertion to avoid the extra overhead of adding an additional IPv6 header? Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D48

Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

wasted bits (and since you stress all the time that SR operates in a "limited domain") a quick comment would be: why do you use IPv6 addresses (IDs of global scope) to identify the SR nodes? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 31C6 D48

  1   2   >