Greg,
Those are exactly my questions too.
Regards
Brian
On 25-Oct-21 11:25, Greg Mirsky wrote:
Hi Brian,
so far I haven't noticed a proposal to support C-SID in IGP. I think that it
brings up a legitimate question: How is it going to work? Would it C-SID be
used in combination with
] Objection to wg adoption call for
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression (was: Re: Question from SPRING
regarding draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
Hi Andrew,
I don't disagree with your point that operational complexity hinders adoption.
However...
On 25.10.21 14:14, Andrew
Hi Andrew,
I don't disagree with your point that operational complexity hinders
adoption. However...
On 25.10.21 14:14, Andrew Alston wrote:
It's here where I think we often end up in a divergence between
practical operation and fancy ideas
The problem is that one often can't tell the
something
widely into the field.
Andrew
From: Ted Hardie
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 1:37 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: Eliot Lear ; Nick Hilliard ; SPRING WG List
; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] Objection to wg adoption call for
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression (was: Re: Question
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 9:47 AM Andrew Alston wrote:
> > Of course there is. You cannot distinguish routing from host without
> looking at external control channels, such as a routing or configuration
> protocol; and you certainly cannot determine the subnet mask of a network
> without that
> Of course there is. You cannot distinguish routing from host without looking
> at external control channels, such as a routing or configuration protocol;
> and you certainly cannot determine the subnet mask of a network without that
> external information, since it's not in the ?> packet.
Hi Brian,
so far I haven't noticed a proposal to support C-SID in IGP. I think that
it brings up a legitimate question: How is it going to work? Would it C-SID
be used in combination with dynamic routing protocols or only from a
centralized controller?
Regards,
Greg
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 2:20
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 11:48 PM Mark Smith wrote:
> Subnet masks weren't a good idea either. They, like classes and CIDR, are
> hacks to squeeze more addresses out of the 32 bit IPv4 address space.
>
> Have a look at the IPv4 address structure in RFC760. Couldn't be simpler.
>
Simplicity
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021, 04:18 Eliot Lear, wrote:
>
> On 24.10.21 17:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > The issue is a good deal deeper than just debugging. As long as
> > there's an option to specify a variable length parameter without being
> > able to specify the length in the protocol, then the
On 25-Oct-21 09:23, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 24.10.21 21:59, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote on 24/10/2021 18:17:
On 24.10.21 17:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The issue is a good deal deeper than just debugging. As long as
there's an option to specify a variable length parameter without
being
On 24.10.21 21:59, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote on 24/10/2021 18:17:
On 24.10.21 17:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The issue is a good deal deeper than just debugging. As long as
there's an option to specify a variable length parameter without
being able to specify the length in the
Eliot Lear wrote on 24/10/2021 18:17:
On 24.10.21 17:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The issue is a good deal deeper than just debugging. As long as
there's an option to specify a variable length parameter without being
able to specify the length in the protocol, then the protocol is
fundamentally
>> On 24.10.21 17:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> The issue is a good deal deeper than just debugging. As long as there's an
>> option to specify a variable length parameter without being able to specify
>> the length in the protocol, then the protocol is fundamentally ambiguous and
>> its
On 24.10.21 17:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The issue is a good deal deeper than just debugging. As long as
there's an option to specify a variable length parameter without being
able to specify the length in the protocol, then the protocol is
fundamentally ambiguous and its interpretation is
Sander Steffann wrote on 24/10/2021 16:15:
The tool used doesn’t matter. What matters that an engineer can
understand and decode what’s going on on the wire when stuff breaks.
And that the headers contain enough information to use for interop
between multiple admin domains for example.
The issue
Hi,
> Just for my own understanding here.
>
> A) Are you asking to add new TLV to IPv6 SRH say called "C-SID Length" (and
> make SRH mandatory if used with C-SIDs) which would define the C-SID length ?
Yes, that would be a step in the right direction.
> B) Are you asking to define a
Nick & Sander,
Just for my own understanding here.
A) Are you asking to add new TLV to IPv6 SRH say called "C-SID Length"
(and make SRH mandatory if used with C-SIDs) which would define the C-SID
length ?
or
B) Are you asking to define a completely new data plane for IP networks ?
By new data
Hi,
> On this basis, I'm objecting to the adoption of
> draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression as a WG draft, and
> respectfully suggest that the spring wg does not adopt any draft in future
> which allows for different C-SID lengths but doesn't encode C-SIDs as
> {length,value}
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Salsano wrote on 23/10/2021 01:29:
if an operator wants to combine CSIDs of different length, building the
debug tools becomes more complex, but this actually depends on the
specific choices and configurations
Exactly. For example, problems will occur when the operator
19 matches
Mail list logo
