On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 1:45 AM Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Ron: > > > > Make sense, If there is a dedicated IPv6 block for SRv6 SID within SRv6 > domain, then trouble situation you described does NOT occur, because the > IPv6 address covered within SRv6 SID prefix does not be involved ICMPv6 ND > protocol, because they are not configured under IP interfaces connected to > “Link”. I also think that the authors of NET-PGM draft have indicated that > SRv6 SID has a separate IPv6 block in their Draft, but they don’t yet > clearly stated which IPv6 block will be used for it. > > > > [Gyan] I agree with what you are saying that if we allocate a separate > /64 block GUA or ULA for SID for each node within the SR domain and that is > separate from interface addressing ranges and is completely dedicated to > SID. So this would prevent any conflict with ND NS/NA processing. Makes > sense. We are addressing the violation to the 6MAN RFC 8200 in draft below > which was rewritten and does look better with the addition of > encapsulation but really need to provide an additional IPv6 encapsulation > every time a EH is inserted "in flight" to be 100% compliant with the IPv6 > specification. Since SRv6 ubiquitous in nature and can be used for any > implementation where traffic engineering is necessary when you go > inter-domain between administrative control it maybe difficult to enforce > or have either the PSP & USP occur outside of the originating SRv6 domain > that inserted the 1st EH header which the main use case that would be > difficult is the "internet" use case. If we cannot come up with a solution > for that we would have to exclude the internet or any inter-domain SRv6 > implementations from using SRv6 from a standards track perspective. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion/ > -------------------------------------- > > *Cheers !* > > > > > > *WANG Weibin * > > > > *From:* spring <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Ron Bonica > *Sent:* 2019年10月14日 9:23 > *To:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Cc:* SPRING WG List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs > > > > Robert, > > > > Yeah, there were a few typos in my original message. What I meant to say > was: > > > > - If a /64 contains a SID, it MUST NOT contain any addresses that > represent interfaces. > - If a /64 contains an address that represents an interface, it MUST > NOT contain SIDs. > > > > If we don’t do this, we have to specify how nodes behave when they receive > ICMPv6 NS messages in which the target is: > > > > - A locally instantiated SID > - A SID learned from the IGP > > > > Ron > > > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 6:57 PM > *To:* Ron Bonica <[email protected]> > *Cc:* SPRING WG List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: IPv6 Addresses and SIDs > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > /64 prefix is a pile of addresses ... if someone would be to follow your > suggestion I could not allocate some blocks of that prefix on R1, then some > other blocks on R2 then yet more on my servers. > > > > You said: > > > > *“With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in > RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either:* > > > > - *Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or* > - *Be unassigned”* > > > > Maybe you meant to say something else: > > > > *“When a /64 is used as SRv6 locator prefix, if one /128 represents an > IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either:* > > > > - *Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or* > - *Be unassigned”* > > But then you sent this to SPRINT indicating that 6MAN should be the > audience :). > > > > Best, > R. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:45 AM Ron Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > > Robert, > > > > I’m having a hard time understanding exactly how I have violated the > longest match principle. Could you provide: > > > > - A pointer to a statement of the longest match principle > - A few words regarding how I have violated it > > > > Ron > > > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 5:24 PM > *To:* Ron Bonica <[email protected]> > *Cc:* SPRING WG List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* IPv6 Addresses and SIDs > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > I disagree. > > > > Your suggestion violates longest prefix match principle in routing. > > > > It is huge waist of address space and is not specific to IPv6 at all. > > > > Let me describe the deployment case where your suggestion would cause it > to break: > > > > I have /64 prefix where a few /128s from that space I allocate to local > interfaces making it a local v6 destinations on those nodes. > > > > However in the spirit of CIDR I still want to to use some blocks of that > space - say /126 or /124 as blocks which I only use to trigger local NAT > as per rfc6296. And NAT does not require local address to be a destination > address so it would be a big disservice to kill such deployment option. > > > > Many thx, > R. > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:59 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica= > [email protected]> wrote: > > Folks, > > > > I think that we need a global rule that says: > > > > “With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC > 4291, all /128 MUST either: > > > > - Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or > - Be unassigned” > > > > The 6man WG will need to make such a statement since it owns RFC 4291. > > > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > -- Gyan S. Mishra IT Network Engineering & Technology Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor Silver Spring, MD 20904 United States Phone: 301 502-1347 Email: [email protected] www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
