Amazing .. but I agree with you again ! ;) Cheers R.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 11:59 Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 21:12 Robert Raszuk, <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> My personal opinion is that with below you are now going way outside of >> what should be discussed on IETF mailing lists. Hope SPRING charis will >> address it. IETF is not the right forum for any vendor implementation >> discussion regardless if this is Cisco, Juniper, Arrcus, Nokia etc .... I >> recommend you move it to -nsp lists. >> > > I think it matters when a draft is reporting deployments, and there are > drafts that are justifying decisions based on apparent operator deployment > popularity rather than providing objective technical and engineering > justification. > > The Internet Engineering Task Force shouldn't fall victim to any logical > fallacies. > > https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com > > > > > > > > > >> If standards or drafts are not clear you are welcome to ask questions on >> those. Any implementation is a private choice of given vendor and in no way >> should influence WG decision in regards of the choices we make in protocol >> design. >> >> If you think that some implementations violate standards or even WG >> drafts you are more then welcome to propose specific questions to >> the implementation reports which chairs would be normally more than happy >> to include in the process and ask or even enforce all vendors to fill the >> blanks. >> >> Regards, >> Robert. >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:58 AM Andrew Alston < >> andrew.als...@liquidtelecom..com <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> >> wrote: >> >>> Alex, >>> >>> >>> >>> Will try and get you some captures off the devices I’ve been testing on >>> – in order to make sure I understood this draft properly, and in light of >>> the deployment status draft, I decided to play a lot more deeply and setup >>> a bit of a lab. I’m still doing tests and soon as I have some other bits >>> completed will send through the packet captures from those against (Since >>> the XR boxes that I have to test on seem to have absolutely no ability to >>> setup traffic steering with SRv6 (and I actually have requested details of >>> how to configure this in the past but gotten no response), I’m just >>> finishing the code to inject packets from outside with a sid stack to test >>> this. I also acknowledge that I’m running tests against code that is >>> implementing a draft that seems far from final – and so shouldn’t have that >>> many expectations. >>> >>> >>> >>> That being said, In light of the deployment draft – I do have some >>> concerns that there is a draft that specifies that people have put this >>> stuff into production – yet the implementation in current shipping code >>> seems to be **way** off the draft and contrary to things we have been >>> told in the working group. >>> >>> >>> >>> Some of the more interesting finds so far: >>> >>> >>> >>> - In Montreal – I questioned the growth in the IGP tables – since I >>> would have to use a separate locator on each router – I was explicitly >>> told >>> this wasn’t necessary and could use the loopbacks – not so in current >>> code >>> – use of the loopback marks the locator as down. >>> >>> >>> >>> - Locator size is not configurable as anything other than a /64 >>> >>> >>> >>> - XR 7.0.1 claims a maximum number of SID’s at 8000 – I’m still >>> unclear if this limitation in the code is based on locally configured >>> SID’s >>> or received SID’s – and will run some tests on this in the coming day or >>> two to verify >>> >>> >>> >>> - There seems to be a limit on a single locator per box – I’m still >>> trying to figure out what impact this will have in a multi-area or >>> multi-level IGP deployment scenario. >>> >>> >>> >>> - By default when configuring a locator – the device configures a >>> separate End.X (PSP) for each interface – now – this is where things get >>> interesting. If I am reading the NP text correctly, End.X (PSP) should >>> be >>> locator:0006:: - However, in the shipping code, that is not the case at >>> all – as per the below: >>> >>> >>> >>> *RP/0/RP0/CPU0:SRV6-R2#show segment-routing srv6 locator R2 sid Sun Dec >>> 15 04:56:10.913 UTC* >>> >>> *SID Behavior >>> Context Owner State RW* >>> >>> *-------------------------- ----------- >>> ------------------------------ ------------------ ----- --* >>> >>> *2001:db8:ee:2:1:: End (PSP) >>> 'default':1 sidmgr InUse Y* >>> >>> *2001:db8:ee:2:11:: End.OP >>> 'default' sidmgr InUse Y* >>> >>> *2001:db8:ee:2:40:: End.X (PSP) [Gi0/0/0/0, >>> Link-Local] isis-64 InUse Y* >>> >>> *2001:db8:ee:2:41:: End.X (PSP) [Gi0/0/0/1, >>> Link-Local] isis-64 InUse Y* >>> >>> *2001:db8:ee:2:42:: End.X (PSP) [Gi0/0/0/3, >>> Link-Local] isis-64 InUse Y* >>> >>> >>> >>> So from my perspective – I have to wonder about the production >>> deployments – because particularly on this last point – if people have been >>> putting this stuff in production, and the implementation is so different >>> from the text, its going to create some rather interesting breakage going >>> forward if my reading of the text is correct. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyway – will send some packet captures hopefully in the next 48 hours >>> once I’ve got a more complete set of captures from my lab setup.. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Alexandre >>> Petrescu >>> *Sent:* Monday, 16 December 2019 17:34 >>> *To:* SPRING WG email list <spring@ietf.org> >>> *Subject:* [spring] packet captures for >>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06? >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, SPRINGers, >>> >>> My comments on SRv6 relate to a worry about modifying packets in transit. >>> >>> In order to better explain myself, or maybe to remove the worry >>> altogether, I would like to ask for packet dumps of SRv6. >>> >>> By looking at the packet contents that go into the network it is much >>> easier to clarify and to avoid misunderstandings. >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
