On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Uma Chunduri <uma.chund...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > > I am really hoping we will be able to apply SRH insertion without > the > > need for IP encapsulation. At least for mobile environments within a > > closed administrative domains, there should be exceptions for > allowing > > insertion of SRH by a on-path node. > > While I see you intention to see a way to reduce the RFC8200 encap overhead; > for mobile/cellular environments I see its paramount to have a standardized > solutions because > it's mostly multi-vendor equipment from most of the operators deployments. > Regardless if it's a closed administrative domain or not. > > > However, it might be fine if it is an inside a DC (for example DC underlay) > kind of environment and this exception could be made; > as the diversity of different vendor equipment can be less. > That story line has played out many times before. In a closed system like a DC there is always seems to be some motivation to deploy proprietary solutions. Often this is done for convenience and because something is viewed as something critically needed today. In the long run, this is self defeating. It is a lot of effort to maintain proprietary protocols, and even worse can force the network into vendor lock-in. It's almost always better to stick with open standards from day one even in closed systems.
Tom > > But the best course still would be to have this documented clearly and if > possible do an update to RFC8200 @ 6man as pointed below by Tom. > > -- > Uma C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:05 AM > To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > <sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Herbert" <t...@quantonium.net> wrote: >> >>>> With regards to SR encapsulation: "this is using IP-in-IP as default. >>>> Why not using UDP encapsulation?" >>> >> >> I am really hoping we will be able to apply SRH insertion without the >> need for IP encapsulation. At least for mobile environments within a >> closed administrative domains, there should be exceptions for allowing >> insertion of SRH by a on-path node. I realize there are issues with >> ICMP error messages hitting the source etc, but we should be able to >> document those issues and specify work arounds. I understand there >> have been discussions on this topic before, but I hope authors will >> find some agreements for the same. >> > Sri, > > There's been quite a bit of discussion on this on 6man list with reference to > draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion. The problem is that extension > header insertion would violate RFC8200: "Extension headers (except for the > Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any > node along a packet's delivery path". > > In addition to the the protocol ramifications of doing this (dealing with > MTU, ICMP error, etc.) there were questions as to whether the benefit is > significant enough to justify the cost, as well as what does it mean to > define Internet protocols that only work in a "controlled domain". > > I believe 6man is the right place for further discussions on this. > > Tom > > > > >> >> Sri >> <with no chair hat> >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
