Hi Ron, True !
But pls do not take my response as an attempt to derail your shot. It was rather a delicate attempt to put it on the right tracks towards the truth target. Best, Robert. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:26 PM Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > Robert, > > > > While this is an interesting question, it is orthogonal to the question > that I posed to Darren. > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2020 3:33 PM > *To:* Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > *Cc:* Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddu...@cisco.com>; Aijun Wang < > wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH) > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > I think this is not the question of RFC 8754. > > > > To me (and trust me I am not alone) this is much more of the question what > IPv6 address means. How flexible we can use all bits regardless if we are > talking SRv6 or not. > > > > Do we think that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VpA2yHsqImwMGaAtR4SPjzF6Ek2NKqm6gF4497TQ2fOFK-RBSZLDVLBl5ltmCnmb$> > section > 2.5 still holds ? Do we need to keep stretching notion of interface to > logical interfaces mapped to functions ? > > > > Then take projects completely unrelated to segment routing ... don't we > see evident that we can encode a lot of useful information in the lowest > significant bits of the IPv6 address without each time proposing new RH ? > > > > Best, > > R. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:08 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica= > 40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Darren, > > > > Does the SID described in RFC 8754 represent any of the SIDs in the > Network Programming Draft? In any other document? > > > > > Ron > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Darren Dukes (ddukes) > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2020 12:21 PM > *To:* Aijun Wang <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH) > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > Hello Aijun. > > > > No update to rfc8754 is necessary. Rfc8754 was written so new sids can be > defined in other documents independently. > > > > section 4.3.1 says: > > This document and section define a single SRv6 SID. Future documents > > may define additional SRv6 SIDs. In such a case, the entire content > > of this section will be defined in that document. > > > > > > Thanks > > Darren > > (Written on mobile) > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Aijun Wang < > wang...@chinatelecom.cn> > *Sent:* Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:15 PM > *To:* i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org > *Subject:* About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH) > > > > Hi, Folks: > > RFC8754(SRH) section 4.3.1.2( > https://tools..ietf.org/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1.2 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8754*section-4..3.1.2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!W4_ZbJ6IaphycWPj08UYd8k9IPlcBP_h6HEasypDyifP-5j3jjAVQJYjvxKIgrBz$>) > describes the process of upper layer header as the followings: > > IF (Upper-layer Header is IPv4 or IPv6) and > > local configuration permits { > > Perform IPv6 decapsulation > > Resubmit the decapsulated packet to the IPv4 or IPv6 module > > } > > ELSE { > > …… > > } > > And in network programming draft section 9.1( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15#section-9.1 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15*section-9.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!W4_ZbJ6IaphycWPj08UYd8k9IPlcBP_h6HEasypDyifP-5j3jjAVQJYjv0iiulaO$>), > one new Ethernet Next Header Type(143) is proposed. > > > > Although the detail process of this new next header are described in the > network program draft, does it need to update the section 4.3.1.2 of > RFC8754 to reflect the process of new header type(143)? > > > > Best Regards > > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VpA2yHsqImwMGaAtR4SPjzF6Ek2NKqm6gF4497TQ2fOFK-RBSZLDVLBl5gomzxK4$> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
