Pablo,
RFC 8200 strongly discourages us from removing the SRH. Therefore, lacking
strong motivation, we should not do so.
We agree that the SRH with Segments Left equal to zero is a functional NOOP..
So, there is no functional motivation. This leaves us to search for other
motivations. The following are possibilities:
* To conserve bandwidth on downstream links
* To make parsing possible on constrained downstream ASICs
Neither of these arguments are compelling, Is there another motivation that I
am missing?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 5:41 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; SPRING WG List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4..16
Hi Ron,
SRH with SL=0 is a functional NOOP but physically present. These flavors remove
the physical instance.
Cheers,
Pablo.
From: Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 02:43
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, SPRING WG List
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4..16
Pablo,
I have read all three of these responses, but remain unconvinced.
The PSP and USP flavors both remove an SRH when the value of Segments Left is
equal to 0. They do not remove the IP header that is extended by the SRH..
The SRH that is removed is functionally an NOOP, because Segments Left is equal
to 0. So why bother to remove it?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 12:45 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; SPRING WG
List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4..16
Ron,
You have already asked that same question a few days ago with the same words:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4_Slu3kkHwduZZPFJJmRUkmoTVo<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4_Slu3kkHwduZZPFJJmRUkmoTVo__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QLco8bcrMNVz-BEUDaTnOAJzb008Hr4jPH9JDfQlJsrpWnQL9RJs3uNXDRTozcu0$>
and there have been replies to it detailing the use-cases:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QLco8bcrMNVz-BEUDaTnOAJzb008Hr4jPH9JDfQlJsrpWnQL9RJs3uNXDShyO5lJ$>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WrYzRZC0HKVgBYaYMCQVcTWrfak__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QLco8bcrMNVz-BEUDaTnOAJzb008Hr4jPH9JDfQlJsrpWnQL9RJs3uNXDeiyat5Q$>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/O7Bf7-UqDj4wDu76d3viV7pCSks<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/O7Bf7-UqDj4wDu76d3viV7pCSks__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QLco8bcrMNVz-BEUDaTnOAJzb008Hr4jPH9JDfQlJsrpWnQL9RJs3uNXDWG9L5Tl$>
I guess you might have missed them. Please read the replies.
Thanks,
Pablo.
From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on
behalf of Ron Bonica
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, 14 October 2019 at 20:45
To: SPRING WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Section 4.16
Authors,
Lacking the B.INSERT and T.INSERT functions, can you describe a use-case for
the PSP and USP flavors of the END, END.X and END.T functions?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
