Hi Brian, Completely agree.
One thing is not to guarantee anything in respect to forwarding IPv6 packets with SRH (or any other extension header) and the other thing is to on purpose recommending killing it at interdomain boundary as some sort of evil. Cheers, R. On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 9:51 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert, > > > If there is any spec which mandates that someone will drop my IPv6 > packets only because they contain SRH in the IPv6 header I consider this an > evil and unjustified action. > > The Internet is more or less opaque to most extension headers, especially > to recently defined ones, so I don't hold out much hope for SRH outside SR > domains. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9098.html > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-elkins-v6ops-eh-deepdive-fw > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 09-Oct-22 07:52, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > > > I was hoping this is apparent so let me restate that I do not buy into > "limited domain" business for SRv6. > > > > I have N sites connected over v6 Internet. I want to send IPv6 packets > between my "distributed globally limited domain" without yet one more encap. > > > > If there is any spec which mandates that someone will drop my IPv6 > packets only because they contain SRH in the IPv6 header I consider this an > evil and unjustified action. > > > > Kind regards, > > Robert > > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 7:40 PM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com > <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote: > > > > Robert, I am having trouble understanding your email. > > > > 1) A Domain would only filter the allocated SIDs plus what it > chooses to use for SRv6. > > > > 2) Whatever it a domain filters should be irrelevant to any other > domain, since by definition SRv6 is for use only within a limited domain. > So as far as I can see there is no way a domain can apply incorrect > filtering. > > > > Yours, > > > > Joel > > > > On 10/8/2022 3:16 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >> Hi Suresh, > >> > >> NEW: > >> In case the deployments do not use this allocated prefix > additional care needs to be exercised at network ingress and egress points > so that SRv6 packets do not leak out of SR domains and they do not > accidentally enter SR unaware domains. > >> > >> > >> IMO this is too broad. I would say that such ingress filtering > could/should happen only if dst or locator is within locally > configured/allocated prefixes. Otherwise it is pure IPv6 transit and I see > no harm not to allow it. > >> > >> Similarly as stated in Section 5.1 of RFC8754 packets entering > an SR domain from the outside need to be configured to filter out the > selected prefix if it is different from the prefix allocated here. > >> > >> > >> Again the way I read it this kills pure IPv6 transit for SRv6 > packets. Why ? > >> > >> (Well I know the answer to "why" from our endless discussions about > SRv6 itself and network programming however I still see no need to mandate > in any spec to treat SRv6 packets as unwanted/forbidden for pure IPv6 > transit.) > >> > >> Thx, > >> R. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > 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
