On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 22:03 Robert Raszuk, <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > Amazing .. but I agree with you again ! ;) >
Hopefully it shouldn't be all that amazing, I try hard to be logical and not fall victim to all the biases we humans have. (I'm planning to release a line of digital hifi cables for audiophiles under the brand "Confirmation Bias". I figure I should get in on the $2900 USD Ethernet cables market. Those 1s and 0s know which direction they're going, and really care if it's the wrong way!) > 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
