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 5:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> 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 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 the fact that draft-ietf-spring-network-programming violates the address semantic specifications of RFC4291. I really think that this is subsidiary to RFC 8402 (a Proposed Standard): SR can be applied to the IPv6 architecture with a new type of routing header called the SR Header (SRH) [IPv6-SRH]. An instruction is associated with a segment and encoded as an IPv6 address. An SRv6 segment is also called an SRv6 SID. An SR Policy is instantiated as an ordered list of SRv6 SIDs in the routing header. I don't see anything in the SRH draft or the network-programming draft that is not within that definition. Whether RFC 8402 contravenes RFC 4291 is worth discussing, I guess. The latter says: IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes. An IPv6 unicast address refers to a single interface. Since each interface belongs to a single node, any of that node's interfaces' unicast addresses may be used as an identifier for the node. 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 considered harmful" in the RFCs. In reality, there are lots of operational practices that amount to giving semantic meanings to address bits. Brian Can we please have a proper discussion on this Thanks Andrew *From: *"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddu...@cisco.com<mailto:ddu...@cisco.com>> *Date: *Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 22:03 *To: *Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>> *Cc: *Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>>, 6man WG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>> *Subject: *Re: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture? Hi Ron, I made no comment in this thread on draft-ietf-spring-network-programming. Darren On Mar 11, 2020, at 2:55 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> <mailto:rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Darren, Didn’t we agree to close issue 66 because draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing header contains no text regarding SID/IPv6 address semantics. If that’s the case, how can you say that closing issue 66 implies WG consensus around SID/IPv6 address semantic proposed in draft-ietf-6man-network-programming? Ron Juniper Business Use Only *From:* ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> <mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of *Darren Dukes (ddukes) *Sent:* Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:07 PM *To:* ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> <mailto:ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> <mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> *Cc:* 6man WG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> <mailto:i...@ietf.org>> *Subject:* Re: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture? Hi Andrew please see issue #66 for the closure record. https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/66 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/66__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RN-QFuaCraX6vU74Vusek5FlDyBGgfC2Teh1Vz40nw0PBhWdPtA-SA3t_rxaFg4_$> Darren On Mar 9, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> <mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote: Hi Darren Hi Mark, the working group discussed the > association with RFC4291 and closed it with > the text in the document. Can we get a reference to these discussions please - would just be useful to back and refresh memories and wasn’t able to find them Thanks Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
