one and doesn’t lead to unintended
> consequences.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Brian E Carpenter
> *Sent:* Thursday, 12 March 2020 00:30
> *To:* Andrew Alston ; Darren Dukes (ddukes)
>
day, March 12, 2020 4:26 AM
> *To:* Brian E Carpenter ; Darren Dukes
> (ddukes) ; Ron Bonica <
> rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6
> addressing architecture - was draft-
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020, 01:41 Fernando Gont, wrote:
> On 11/3/20 23:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 12-Mar-20 10:44, Fernando Gont wrote:
> >> On 11/3/20 18:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> []
> >>>
> >>> However, I can't find anything in RFC 4291 that forbids addresses
> >>> having
ject: Re: [spring] Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6 addressing
architecture - was draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291,
IPv6 Addressing Architecture?
Brian,
Let me clarify a few things – for my own understanding – I am happy to be wrong
here, and if I am just let
; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6 addressing
architecture - was draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291,
IPv6 Addressing Architecture?
Brian,
Let me clarify a few things – for my own understanding – I am happy to be wrong
here, and if I
On 11/3/20 23:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 12-Mar-20 10:44, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 11/3/20 18:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[]
However, I can't find anything in RFC 4291 that forbids addresses
having semantic meanings rather than being pure locators. It goes
against one of my design
ew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>>;
> Darren Dukes (ddukes) mailto:ddu...@cisco.com>>; Ron Bonica
> mailto:rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man WG
> mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: Draft-iet
Hi Mark,
> I think it serves a very important purpose, which is why I raised it.
>
> SRv6 SRH says IPv6 addresses can be assigned to nodes, contrary to RFC 4291.
> What is the Interface Identifier portion of the address called in that case,
> and where is it specified?
>
> There needs to be
bout what other RFC’s say and don’t say – perhaps its time to start
> examining this whole thing with a fine tooth comb so that we can end up
> with a better result that works for everyone and doesn’t lead to unintended
> consequences.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Andre
this whole thing with a fine tooth comb so that we can end up
> with a better result that works for everyone and doesn’t lead to unintended
> consequences.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian E Carpenter
> *Sent:*
o start
> examining this whole thing with a fine tooth comb so that we can end up with
> a better result that works for everyone and doesn’t lead to unintended
> consequences.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> From: Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Thursday, 12 March
To: Andrew Alston ; Darren Dukes (ddukes)
; Ron Bonica
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: Re: Draft-ietf-spring-network-programming ipv6 addressing architecture
- was draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6
Addressing Architecture?
On 12-Mar-20 09:53, Andrew Alston
Hi Brian, I agree with your statement re operational practices.
Indeed this was mentioned on SPRING in the past, and at that time a couple RFC
examples were given RFC6059, RFC7599. I'm sure there are others.
Andrew, are you providing any new technical information?
Darren
On Mar 11, 2020, at
Correct Brian, no SLAAC.
Darren
> On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> On 12-Mar-20 10:44, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 11/3/20 18:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> []
>>>
>>> However, I can't find anything in RFC 4291 that forbids addresses
>>> having semantic
On 12-Mar-20 10:44, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 11/3/20 18:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> []
>>
>> However, I can't find anything in RFC 4291 that forbids addresses
>> having semantic meanings rather than being pure locators. It goes
>> against one of my design prejudices, but I can't find
Brian,
> On Mar 11, 2020, at 2:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> On 12-Mar-20 09:53, Andrew Alston wrote:
>> Hi Spring WG
>>
>>
>>
>> On the basis of the below – I must conclude that the issues relating the
>> SID/IPv6 semantics have indeed not been dealt with by the spring working
>>
On 11/3/20 18:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[]
However, I can't find anything in RFC 4291 that forbids addresses
having semantic meanings rather than being pure locators. It goes
against one of my design prejudices, but I can't find anything
resembling "Encoding semantics in address bits
On 12-Mar-20 09:53, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Hi Spring WG
>
>
>
> On the basis of the below – I must conclude that the issues relating the
> SID/IPv6 semantics have indeed not been dealt with by the spring working
> group in the context of the network programming draft – and I would now like
Hi Spring WG
On the basis of the below – I must conclude that the issues relating the
SID/IPv6 semantics have indeed not been dealt with by the spring working group
in the context of the network programming draft – and I would now like to raise
those issues in the context of that draft – and
19 matches
Mail list logo
