Hi Gyan, Thanks for your comments. Please find responses inline. > On Sep 28, 2022, at 11:06 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I support publication of the draft. > > I have reviewed the draft and have some comments. > > As the C-SID draft had been adopted by Spring I don’t see a need for section > 4.2 as is not relevant. > > Section 4 talks about C-SID which is vague as it should be referencing the > two different vendor solutions below:
Good point. I have a queued up change from early in the WGLC to update the reference to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression which is the spring WG draft and that would obviate the need to add vendor specific solutions. > > Brief description of each flavor and operation I think is important for the > draft. > > 1. Cisco uSID micro sid - Next function- Shift by 16 bits and forward at each > node endpoint processing. > The 128 bit DA is a uSID carrier can have up to 6 16 bit uSIDs encoded into > the DA for steering up to 6 nodes without SRH. If desirable to steer to more > then 6 nodes an SRH is required along with SR Policy with Segment list. > > 2. Huawei G-SID - Replace function - Copies G-SID from SRH to DA address at > each node endpoint processing. G-SID operation requires SRH present. > > Most all deployments of SRV6 are done using ULA addressing RFC 4193. Even > across the internet the internal P nodes in a carrier network can use RFC > 4193 as along as the eBGP peering points use next hop self which avoids > requiring next hop eBGP subnet accessibility. That being said subnets or > even aggregate summary of the carrier network does not need to be advertised > outside of the carrier networks domain. > > This draft proposed an IANA allocation /16 for the GUA address for the SRv6 > block B:N deployment out of which the SRv6 locators are allocated. > > I understand the reasoning behind it to avoid advertisement of the locators > outside of the domain. > > The IANA allocation does not mention that the block should be made non > internet routable like a ULA. Yes. The IANA allocation itself will not have such properties as the registry does not have a way to request it. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml> But we can certainly add an entry to https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml> to mention this is in fact the case. I also see that the discussion about using ULA instead of a specific prefix has progressed on and I have a view that is very similar to what Brian C. and Michael R. had expressed. Regards Suresh
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
