Hi Tom, Thank you, first of all, for your interest!
Yes, SID list can be reduced in some cases. I agree it should be restricted to the minimum necessary. I think ILA and SRv6 share a common view, while SRv6 allows more flexible functions. Regarding RFC8200, attacks can be and should be prevented in another way. If under agreement, header insertion, which could make network more efficient, should be allowed. I hope ILA and SRv6 converge. Miya@a co-author of SRv6 mobile data plane On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am working on a comparison between ILA and SRv6 for the mobile > user-plane. I have some questions/comments about SRv6 and particularly on > the example use cases that were depicted in the slides that were presented > in IETF100: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides- > 100-dmm-srv6-for-mobile-user-plane/ > > - It's clear from the depicted use cases that extension header insertion > is being done by intermediate nodes, but extension header insertion is > currently prohibited by RFC8200. There was an I-D posted on 6man to allow > this for SR, but that was met with pushback. Is there going to be followup > to resolve this? > > - For the uplink use cases, this seems to be more like using SR to source > route to an egress router. In other words, it's not strictly related to > mobility. Is there some connection to mobility that I'm missing? > > - The size or number of SR headers in the uplink cases seems to be larger > than necessary (IMO minimizing these is important since each additional sid > is ~1% overhead of standard MTU). In this first scenario sid[1]=A2::1 and > DA=A2::1-- this seems to be redundant information. Also this depicts a > second SR being inserted, but the first one should no longer be relevant. > Why not just discard the first one and save the overhead? In the second > scenario, DA is changing from A2::1 to A3::1, but AFAICT that was not done > per the SR processing. What is the operation that happened here? (it's > actaully looks like an ILA transfomation). > > - Considering the points above, could this have been done in the following > manner to minimize overhead? A1 creates one SRH with one sid and makes > DA=A2. A2 makes DA=A3. At A3 SR is processed, DA is restored to Internet > address, and EH is removed. > > - For downlink this does see to be relevant to mobility. But I have the > same question, wouldn't it be less overhead to only use one SRH and one > sid? i.e. A3 creates an SRH with just one sid that is the S:: (identifier > in identifier/locator speak) and set DA to A2, and then A2 sets DA to A1, > A1 restores original packet for delivery. > > - One possible typo. In the last use case slide SA=S:: and DA=D::, I > believe these should be swapped? > > Thanks, > Tom > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
