Darren,
Will the SID defined in RFC 8754 appear in the IANA SRv6 Endpoint Behavior
Sub-registry? If not, can it be implemented?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Hi Ron.
The SID described in RFC8754 is fully described there.
The SIDs in draft-ietf-spring-SRv6-network-programming are fully defined in
that document.
Darren
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 3:08:12 PM
To: Darren Dukes (ddukes) ; Aijun Wang
;
Mark, Robert,
I will be in the club car of that train, enjoying a few shots of fernet branca.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Question regarding the IANA request for ethernet protocol number for SRV6.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
143 Ethernet Ethernet (TEMPORARY - registered 2020-01-31, expires
2021-01-31)
The ethernet protocol number request does seem odd as the protocol
Hi Jingrong and Arjun
I believe what Daren is pointing out is that section 4.3.1 is referencing
RFC 8200 for next header processing. Since that is stated in the beginning
of section 4 and pertains to all sub sections I believe that would
suffice. For SRv6 PGM draft I agree section 4 needs
Hey Mark,
Thank you for presenting your house architectural perspective.
Mine is much simpler ... I compare IPv6 128 bits of address to a train.
First 64 bits is a locomotive and undercarriage which we better leave
alone.
However what goes into the remaining 64 bits are passengers travelling
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 07:31, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> 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.
>
The IPv6 addressing model is 25 years old, going by
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 wrote:
> Robert,
>
>
>
> While this is an interesting question,
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
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 3:33 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Darren Dukes
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 section 2.5 still
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 On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent:
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
Hi Jingrong,
I have found the text. (It was in my SPRING mailbox).
A much shorter update may suffice. Does the following work for you?
OLD>
IF (Upper-layer Header is IPv4 or IPv6) and
local configuration permits {
Perform IPv6 decapsulation
Resubmit the decapsulated packet to
Hi Jingrong,
Where did you post the text?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 11:10 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; Aijun Wang ;
i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: About the upper layer header processing in
Hi Ron,
Agreed ICMP is an upper-layer header that should be consistent with the
SRv6-OAM draft [1], and I guess you may have also noticed the same.
Please see the proposed text I have just posted.
Regards,
Jingrong
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-05
From: Ron
Aijun, Jingrong,
Could the upper-layer header also be ICMP, as in a ICMP Echo message?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:29 PM
To: Aijun Wang ; i...@ietf.org;
Hi Aijun,
Very good catch!
I think the 4.3.1.2 need to be updated !
I would like to propose some text (maybe later today) for RFC8754 4.3.1.2, as
well as some other text in SRv6-PGM section 4.1 (and some related sections) I
have observed about the Upper-layer processing for further discussion.
Hi, Folks:
RFC8754(SRH) section
4.3.1.2(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1.2) 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
Hi, Folks:
RFC8754(SRH) section
4.3.1.2(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1.2) 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
19 matches
Mail list logo
