, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)"
Cc: SPRING WG , Bob Hinden , Mark Smith
Subject: RE: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Pablo,
Your point is well-taken. We should remind the reader to abide by *all* RFC
4291 and RFC 8200 validation rules, not just
ica
; Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Cc: SPRING WG ; Bob Hinden ; Mark Smith
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Ron,
Let's say other RFC defines rules X,Y,Z.
Draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming follows those RFCs and hence those
rules.
You have
, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)"
Cc: SPRING WG , Bob Hinden , Mark Smith
Subject: RE: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Pablo,
I am happy to hear that you would not forward the packet. That is the
correct behavior.
Could we make that
Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 3:07 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; Ron Bonica
; Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Cc: SPRING WG ; Bob Hinden ; Mark Smith
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Ron,
Ok. Let me try to be open-minded and understand why you
maril)" , Ron Bonica
, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)"
Cc: SPRING WG , Bob Hinden , Mark Smith
Subject: RE: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Pablo,
Let us agree to disagree.
Chairs,
Please do
)
Cc: SPRING WG ; Bob Hinden ; Mark Smith
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Ron,
I agree with Bob, Darren and Kamran that the existing IPv6 processing rules are
followed in Network Programming and do not need to be re-stated.
Cheers,
Pablo
Dukes (ddukes)"
Cc: SPRING WG , Bob Hinden , Mark Smith
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Darren,
If the draft adhered strictly to RFC 4291 and RFC 8200 in all other
respects, I would agree with you and Bob. However, it doesn't.
Mark Smith
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Hi Ron, I agree with Bob here.
Section 4.2 pseudocode simply says an implementation would use a predetermined
egress adjacency instead of performing a FIB lookup to find one.
It specifies the SID proce
;
> Please explain. I don’t see that.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Bob Hinden
>> Sent: Sunday
Ron
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Hinden
> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:47 AM
> To: Ron Bonica
> Cc: Bob Hinden ; Mark Smith ;
> SPRING WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 N
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Hinden
> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:56 PM
> To: Ron Bonica
> Cc: Bob Hinden ; Mark Smith ;
> SPRING WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
>
> R
iness Use Only
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Hinden
> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:56 PM
> To: Ron Bonica
> Cc: Bob Hinden ; Mark Smith ;
> SPRING WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
>
> Ron,
>
: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
Ron,
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:
>
> Mark, Bob,
>
> Yes, I agree that routers should not forward packets with link local source
> addresses.
or Destination addresses.
>
> Pab
Ron
>
>
> From: Mark Smith
> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:31 PM
> To: Bob Hinden
> Cc: Ron Bonica ; SPRING WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source
Addre
Ron
>
>
> From: Mark Smith
> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:31 PM
> To: Bob Hinden
> Cc: Ron Bonica ; SPRING WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, 08:35 Bo
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 2:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, 08:35 Bob Hinden, wrote:
> Ron,
>
> > On Nov 30, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Ron Bonica
> > wrote:
> >
> > Pablo,
> >
> >
> >
> > Consider the packet (SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) where:
> >
> >
> >
> > • SA is link-local
, December 1, 2019 5:31 PM
To: Bob Hinden
Cc: Ron Bonica ; SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, 08:35 Bob Hinden,
mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Ron,
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Ron Bonica
> mail
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, 08:35 Bob Hinden, wrote:
> Ron,
>
> > On Nov 30, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Ron Bonica 40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Pablo,
> >
> >
> >
> > Consider the packet (SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) where:
> >
> >
> >
> > • SA is link-local (fe80)
> > • DA, S3, S2, and S
Ron,
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Ron Bonica
> wrote:
>
> Pablo,
>
>
>
> Consider the packet (SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) where:
>
>
>
> • SA is link-local (fe80)
> • DA, S3, S2, and S1 are all END.X
>
>
> Section 4.2 suggests that this packet will be delivered over multiple
Pablo,
Consider the packet (SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) where:
* SA is link-local (fe80)
* DA, S3, S2, and S1 are all END.X
Section 4.2 suggests that this packet will be delivered over multiple hops to
its destination, regardless of its link-local source address.
Is this the case?
20 matches
Mail list logo
