Folks,
In a private communication, someone asked for specific references to RFCs 8200
and 4291 that were difficult to harmonize with
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression. References follow:
Section 3 of RFC 8200
-----------------------------
"The Destination Address field of the IPv6 header contains the "128-bit address
of the intended recipient of the packet (possibly not the ultimate recipient,
if a Routing header is present). See [RFC4291] and Section 4.4."
Section 2 of RFC 4291
-----------------------------
"IPv6 addresses are 128-bit identifiers for interfaces and sets of interfaces
(where "interface" is as defined in Section 2 of [RFC8200])".
Section 2 of RFC 8200
------------------------------
* An interface is "a node's attachment to a link"
* A link is "a communication facility or medium over which nodes can
communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below IPv6."
So, an IPv6 Destination Address represents a single thing that is instantiated
on a single node.
According to draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02, A
Compressed-SID container (C-SID container) is "an entry of the SRH Segment-List
field (128 bits) that contains a sequence of C-SIDs." A C-SID is "a C-SID is a
short encoding of a SID in SRv6 packet that does not include the SID block bits
(locator block)."
According to RFC 8896, a SID identifies an instruction on a node.
And finally, according to draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02,
an SRv6 node can copy a container C-SID to the Destination Address fieldd of
theIPv6 header.
When this happens, the IPv6 Destination Address doesn't represent a single
thing on a single node. It represents an entire SR path.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]>
Subject: draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02
Folks,
Draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02 introduces three new SID
types that can occupy the Destination Address field of an IPv6 header. See
Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the draft for details.
The SPRING WG has issued a call for adoption for this draft.
It is not clear that these SID types can be harmonized with the IPv6 addressing
architecture.
Does anyone have an opinion?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
