On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:12 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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 !* >> >> [Gyan] Spring WG -?? Because SRv6 uses the same IPv6 data plan as >> "Business as Usual" NORMAL IPv6 traffic use case of the "internet" so >> the an "SRv6 enabled router" that has the code that supports SRv6 has the >> software feature to perform the PSP & USP but lets say the packet hits a >> node that does not support SRv6 then the PSP & USP won't occur and all the >> EH headers inserted for SRv6 routing header type 4 will remain in the >> packet to the end destination. How do we deal with this issue. >> > >> >> *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 > > -- 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
