If a deployment of SRv6 uses unsecured tunnels as a means to deliver
SRv6 packets between pieces of the domain, then anyone, almost anywhere
in the Internet, can inject such packets. That is not a limited
domain. It is a wide open domain.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/14/2023 12:01 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Why would you expect this to always unconditionally use "secure
tunnels" ? For lot's of applications basic encapsulation is
sufficient. Note that I mentioned the case where my sites are
connected over ISP not the Internet.
Besides if there is concern about data protection or data integrity
lot's of applications use app level encryption so asking for transport
tunnel security would be redundant at best.
Thx,
R.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 5:42 PM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
If they want to specify in the draft that the CPE are operator
managed by a single operator, and that they use secure tunnels
(not just arbitrary overlay) between the BRAS then we can as a WG
see if that suffices. But the draft doesn't currently say that.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/14/2023 11:40 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Joel,
Limited domain (if you will) can be also build in the overlay -
unless you point me to any standards track RFC which says
otherwise. If I connect over ISP with v6 I can run my own limited
domain over such ISP between hosts in my sites.
Of course ISP may recognize that I am actually sending v6 packets
with extension headers and drop those ... but this is not a
concern for this thread nor for IETF. In such a case I will would
switch an ISP :)
Cheers,
R.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 5:33 PM Joel Halpern
<j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
Nope.
The host case for SRv6 is for hosts run by the operator
within their domain. 8986 explicitly requires that SRv6 be
used only within a limited domain.
It is clear from other comments that you do not like this
restriction. That is your priviledge as an individual. But
IETF work has to respect the restriction.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/14/2023 11:28 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Joel,
*Point 1: *
Reading RFC8986 I see in section 4.16.2 clear definition of
SRv6 running on user hosts.
/One of the applications of the USP flavor is when a packet
with an SRH is destined to an /
/application on hosts with smartNICs ("Smart Network
Interface Cards") implementing /
/SRv6. The USP flavor is used to remove the consumed SRH
from the extension header /
/chain before sending the packet to the host.
/
*Point 2: *
*
*
If two hosts want for whatever reason to use SRv6 over the
provider's IPv6 underlay (and they may possibly benefit from
DHCP allocation of locators) they can happily do so and I
see nowhere in any SRv6 spec any mandate which would state a
word against such deployment model.
Thx,
Robert
PS, This entire notion of "limited domain" is as you very
well know the history is not a very technical thing ...
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 5:08 PM Joel Halpern
<j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
Speaking as an individual participant, it seems to me
that the description of using CPE as SRv6 endpoints
needs to state explicitly and clearly that this assumes
that the CPE are managed by the access operator, and
that all of the relevant endpoints are part of a single
operator / domain. Otherwise, this usage violates the
base rules for SRv6.
Personally, I would like to see this fixed before
adoption completes.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/14/2023 9:44 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
I probably need to re-read the draft. Does the draft
assume the CPE is part of the operator domain?
Remember that SRv6 MUST be used ONLY within a limited
domain?
Yours,
Joel
On 7/14/2023 2:22 AM, Weiqiang Cheng wrote:
Hi Aijun,
Thank you very much for your comments.
We will add some text to describe that the CPE
utilizes locators obtained through DHCP to provide
differentiated services.
Best Regards
Weiqiang Cheng
*发件人：* Aijun Wang
<mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>
*发送时间：* 2023-07-14 11:19
*收件人：* 'Alvaro Retana'
<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>; spring@ietf.org
*抄送：*
draft-cheng-spring-distribute-srv6-locator-by-d...@ietf.org;
spring-cha...@ietf.org
*主题：* 答复: [spring] spring WG Adoption Call for
draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp
Support its adoption.
It will be more convincible to add some
descriptions in the document that the CPE itself
needs to obtain different IPv6 address that can
differentiate the services that it can provide.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: spring-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>] 代表 Alvaro Retana
发送时间: 2023年7月5日 20:00
收件人: spring@ietf.org
抄送:
draft-cheng-spring-distribute-srv6-locator-by-d...@ietf.org;
spring-cha...@ietf.org
主题: [spring] spring WG Adoption Call for
draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp
Dear WG:
This message starts a two-week adoption call for
draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp,
ending on July/19.
It "describes the method of assigning locators to
SRv6 Endpoints through DHCPv6".
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-spring-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp/
Please review the draft and consider whether you
support its adoption by the WG. Please share any
thoughts with the list to indicate support or
opposition -- this is not a vote.
If you are willing to provide a more in-depth
review, please state it explicitly to give the
chairs an indication of the energy level in the
working group willing to work on the document.
WG adoption is the start of the process. The
fundamental question is whether you agree the
proposal is worth the WG's time to work on and
whether this draft represents a good starting
point. The chairs are particularly interested in
hearing the opinion of people who are not authors
of the document.
Thanks!
Alvaro (for the Chairs)
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
