Sasha,
I think that we are in agreement regarding points 1 and 2. Issue #3 is the bone
of contention.
More inline.......
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
________________________________
From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Alexander Vainshtein
<alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
Cc: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>; spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>;
Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>;
Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>; Andrew Alston - IETF
<andrew-ietf=40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: Chair Review of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Ron,
I think we are – in a way.
1. We agree that SRv6 SIDs are not aligned with the IPv6 addressing
architecture as defined in RFC 4291
* This is recognized by the 6MAN WG and there seems to be a consensus
there about the way this can be handled
* IMHO and FWIW their proposal is good enough - but beauty is always in
the eye of the beholder
2. We agree (or so I think) that certain things that happen around SRv6
would be violations of RFC 8200
* I have not heard that 6MAN WG has ever agreed to these violations
* From my POV such violations must be blocked if SRv6 remains part of
IPv6
* I think that the SPRING WG recognizes the limits set by RFC 8200, will
refrain from crossing these limits
3. I object to separation of SRv6 from IPv6 using a new optional Ethertype
because:
*
It is by far too late for that, and, probably, has been too late before SRv6
has been born
[RB] Is it? I think that we have a choice between correcting the error now or
watching engineering debt accumulate over the years. Both options are painful.
In my experience, it is better to endure a sharp pain that ends quickly than a
dull pain that lasts forever.
* You cannot force people to use an optional Ethertype while the normal
IPv6 Ethertype is allowed, and therefore nothing would be really achieved this
way
[RB] I agree that an optional Ethertype will achieve little. It should be
mandatory.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
