On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, 2:05 PM Ron Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > > > In my experience, operators object when SR overhead consumes more than 80 > bytes. Also, I have encountered two classes of operator: > > > > - Those who avoid strictly-routed segments > - Those who rely heavily on strictly-routed segments > > > > Those who avoid strictly-routed segments rarely generate SID Lists that > contain more than 8 entries. So, they are generally OK with 32-bit > encoding. This is because with 32-bit encoding, the total SR overhead is > exactly 80 bytes (i.e., 40 bytes for the IPv6 header and 40 bytes for the > CRH). > > > > By contrast, those who rely on strictly-routed segments regularly generate > SID Lists that contain more than 8 entries. So, they are generally required > 16-bit encoding. > > IMHO, the operator understands its needs better than we do. We should > support both. Let the operator decide at run time. >
If devices the operator has deployed don't support all the modes, then it's not really a decision the operator can make, especially if they are bound by the least common denominator of support. This is the predicament of the largest operators that have a variety of different vendor devices in deployment. Ron, I'm a little surprised that there is pushback on being to support two SID sizes in an implementation. This doesn't seem all that complex to me, especially in light of the complex functionality being defined in other low level protocols such as SR. Can you, or someone who sees this as an issue, provide a little more context on this problem? Thanks, Tom > > > Ron > > > > > > *From:* Mark Smith <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 9:08 PM > *To:* Tom Herbert <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>; 6man > WG <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Comments on draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus > > > > > > On Thu., 4 Jul. 2019, 06:06 Tom Herbert, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:44 PM Ron Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > On Friday, I will update draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr. It will contain > a section on mutability. It will say: > > > > - the Segments Left field is mutable > > - every other field in the CRH is immutable > > > > I will also update draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt and > draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt. Both of those request an IANA option type > with the CHG bit equal to 0. So they are both immutable. > > > > SID encoding isn't entirely opportunistic. Since the last IETF, we > realized that it would be burdensome for every vendor to support all three > SID lengths. So, we said that implementations MUST support 32-bit encoding > and MAY support 16 bit encoding. (We dropped 8-bit encoding entirely). > > This sounds dicey from an interoperability and flexibility point of > view. Supposed I've deployed a network where everyone is using 16 bits > SIDs. But, then for some reason I need to switch vendors for a small > part of the network and their implementation doesn't support 16 bits. > Do I need to up the MSV and make all SIDs to be 32 bits just on the > off chance that one of the new nodes might be in some SID list? > > > > > A side effect of this decision is that a node should only send CRH's > with 16-bit encoding every other node in the domain supports 16-bit > encoding. So, network operators will need to configure the SID length on > each node, with the default being 32. > > Well, in light the above problem, I have to wonder if it's better to > only support 32 bits. The leap from 128 bits to 32 bits is much more > consequential than going from 32 to 16 bits. Other than that, it > simplifies the protocol, reduces support and test matrix, ensures > interoperability, etc. > > > > One single size is much better. > > > > I think most people will pick the larger size, regardless of their > functional SID space need, to avoid the possibility of getting it wrong and > then having to do a lot of after hours and possibly service impacting work > in the future to expand from the smaller to larger size. > > > > Implementations would also be simpler, so less opportunities for > implementation bugs. > > > > It also means no possibility of configuration errors because the size is a > constant rather than a settable parameter. > > > > A lot of the principles in RFC 5505 - "Principles of Internet Host > Configuration" - seem to me to be equally applicable to network interior > protocols. > > > > For example, I think the whole of "2.1. Minimize Configuration" fully > applies here. > > > > Regards, > > Mark. > > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 2:48 PM > > To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]> > > Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]>; 6man WG <[email protected]> > > Subject: Comments on draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > Thanks for the draft. > > > > I think the name SRV6+ might be a little misleading in that it could be > misinterpreted as SRV6+ being a superset of SRV6. Specifically, > > SRV6+ doesn't allow 128 bit SIDs which seems inherent in SRV6 and so > > the primary function (and implementation) of SRV6 isn't compatible. It > doesn't seem like it would be that much effort to allow a 128 bit SID size > to be compatible. > > > > I don't understand the rationale for needing a MSV to be explictly > configured throughout the domain. Couldn't the appropriate SID size be > chosen by the sender at run time. For instance, if all the SIDs in a list > are less than 65,536 then 16 bit SIDs can be used, else 32 bit SIDs are > used (I assume 16 and 32 bit SIDs are in same number space). > > Since CRH has the bits stating the SID length there is no ambiguity at > the receiver. SID compression is opportunistic and it's always good > practice to avoid situations that require wide scale renumbering. > > > > Please add a section on mutability requirements of protocol fields so > that there is no ambiguity. > > > > Tom > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=h1HPGtWvJGktKCJMcb_UIbDF0WrfdBRAeoLqQwBlgsY&s=ulAeVo3sBVzIwVGNNlvIUtUN4ctFNBLaPQKpAbrIpl8&e=> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
