Hi Xiao, Thank you for the feedback. As also discussed with Greg, this is a general issue if you want to add on-path information for SRv6 and avoid some limitations with the option header (RFC 9098 and draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits). I think that, for SRv6, a more robust way can be to integrate the data fields directly into the SRH, since there is the possibility to define dedicated TLVs.
Regards, Giuseppe From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of xiao.m...@zte.com.cn Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 3:53 AM To: j...@joelhalpern.com Cc: spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method Hi Joel, et al., As a verndor having implemented the encapsulation *put the Alternate Marking encodings in the Destination Option preceding an SRH* [RFC 9343], I regard the encapsulation *put the Alternate Marking encodings in the SRH TLV* [draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark] as a burden. Note that it's a data plane encapsulation, one solution is preferred always, unless the newly introduced one has significant advantage (in some aspects, to some people), it's not the case to me, the potential benefit to use one IPv6 extension header (SRH) instead of two (DOH+SRH) doesn't mitigate my concern. :( Best Regards, Xiao Min Original From: JoelHalpern <j...@joelhalpern.com<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; Cc: 6man <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>; Date: 2023年02月02日 08:45 Subject: [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method This call is for the draft at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark This email starts the WG adoption call for the subject draft (as requested by the authors, with apologies from the WG chairs for how long it has taken to kick this out.) This call will run through the end of the day on Feb 16. Pleaes read the whole email as there are a few points, and it is not that long. Please comment on whether you think this topic is something you think the spring WG should work, whether you think this draft is a good starting point for such work, any issues or concerns you have, and whether you would be willing to help be contributing and / or reviewing the work if the WG does choose to work on it. 6man is copied for their information, as this is different from but related to an extension header proposal in front of 6man. Authors and named contributors, please confirm to the list that all known, relevant, IPR has been disclosed. If it has note, please remedy this gap. The spring chairs have noted one aspect of this draft that caught our eye, and we would appreciate WG members who comment on the adoption to consider, and if possible opine, on this. As we read this draft, as distinct from the related 6man extension header work, this causes the recorded altmarks to only be updated at routers identified in the SRH segment list. (We presume this would include all identified points in a compressed container.) We could not tell from the document what the value was for this as distinct from getting the measurements at all routers. Do WG members understand and agree that it does have value? As a lesser point, we consider that one quote in the draft is misleading and will likely need to be reworded in the near future. The draft say "SRH TLV can also be used to encode the AltMark Data Fields for SRv6 and to monitor every node along the SR path." It is unclear if these was intended to mean all routers (most of which would not see this TLV) or if it was intended to refer to only those routers identified in the SRH, in which case we presume it will be reworded. Thank you, Joel _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
