Re: [Idr] locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 12 March 2021 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D262B3A11C7 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:29:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZURuJM5BYub4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F8C33A11C0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Dxy8J6PGCz6G9Pr; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:29:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1615580944; bh=ZPLyFwp9zpLwZIwpF3ANsTSi46+W2ptF2gdQMpC/3qc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LhiLh51nyBbibSWXsiT+8IrzyeJcj1lAtq17LO0+pS/jGbCXUCdBX9uEsw33qtyGF VEdc1zuewnp68y2LBEnAdeKy8uHF2ElJj4JmY2M2UBxAEARcLZpEKQYMtNFal99zp+ lnQqPAzKONXKqbk3/lmaAmiRezVDY64pkM426k4g=
X-Quarantine-ID: <mUMyN4ON1xUH>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Dxy8J0pWDz6G7ld; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:29:03 -0800 (PST)
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
References: <MN2PR13MB40876899246382264C393D06F26F9@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <89430d8e-58c1-7854-27a5-b01a4cf9c43f@joelhalpern.com> <MN2PR13MB4087266ED6ECE72F5F281E86F26F9@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <41feb923-eeba-d7db-a048-1b335bf8f92b@joelhalpern.com> <MN2PR13MB40874FC93A03CCDE2A012ECBF26F9@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <ad81e08a-09ab-ef9a-3295-ab3cf58b740d@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:29:01 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB40874FC93A03CCDE2A012ECBF26F9@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U4J4HKvzejHGp6uae3MvaW6ThqQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 20:29:07 -0000

I have to disagree with your basic premise.  At least for LOC and FUNC 
bits, less than and greater than are NOT meaningful comparisons.

Even for ARG bits, the only defined usage for the bits is such that 
comparisons other than equal to / not equal to are meaningless.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/12/2021 3:19 PM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
>      Thanks much for your further comment.
> 
>      It seems that using loc, func and args in SID is simpler than using
> address prefix of SID for SRv6 flow specification. For matching/filtering
> on an IP destination address prefix, it seems that there is just bitwise
> pattern matching. For matching/filtering on a SID (loc, func and args in 
> SID),
> there are a few operators such as eq, lt and gt (and combinations of them).
> 
>      For flow specification(s) to match a range of functions such as
> from function value F1 to F1+1, to F1+n (where n > 1) in SID,
> using IP address prefix seems need (n+1) flow specifications, each of
> which is for one function value and would have two (type 1) components:
> one component for matching the locator and the other for matching the
> function value. Using loc and func in SID needs just one flow specification
> having one (type TBD) component with three <op, value> pairs. The first pair
> is for matching the locator and the other two for the range.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 12, 2021 11:49 AM
> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>rg>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
> *Subject:* Re: locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6
> Given that you have to check loc before func and check loc and func
> before arg, it would seem simpler to just use an address prefix.  Gets
> around all of the knowledge problems.
> 
> Note that a UI for creating flowspec filters can allow the user to
> specify it in all sorts of ways.  that does not mean we need to put all
> of them in the protocol when they are equivalent.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 3/12/2021 11:44 AM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>> 
>>      Thanks much for your further comment.
>> 
>>      Just checking the FUNC bits should be limited. We will add some
>> text to state that in order to check the FUNC bits, the LOC needs to
>> be examined and matched first.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Huaimo
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 12, 2021 9:58 AM
>> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>om>; Joel M. Halpern 
>> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>rg>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6
>> An operator can assign B::/48 and C::?46  for Locators.  Sure, it would
>> usually be a single prefix with a single length.  But that is not required.
>> 
>> When one is examining the LOC, sure, you can use the value length to
>> handle it.
>> But the way the mechanism is described, one could try to check just the
>> FUNC bits, without matching the LOC.
>> First, that has the problem of needing exogenous information about the
>> LOC length.
>> 
>> And it is actually worse than that.  Testing the FUNC bits of the
>> destination field of an IP packet without checking the LOC bits is
>> actually meaningless.  You don't even know if the DA is an SRv6 SID.
>> 
>> An yet further, there is no requirement that the encoding of the FUNC in
>> different SIDs uses the same value representation.  The standardized
>> values are for advertising in routing protocols, not for the packets.
>> 
>> Net: I don't think having the field identification works.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> 
>> On 3/12/2021 9:51 AM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>>> Hi Joel,
>>> 
>>>      Thank you very much for your comment during the IETF 110.
>>> 
>>>      Regarding to the lengths of locator(LOC)s and function(FUNCT)s in 
>>> SIDs,
>>> RFC8986 says that the locator length, is flexible, and an operator is free
>>> to use the locator length of their choice. This seems indicating that the
>>> operator can select the length for the locator. After their selection, the
>>> the locator length is determined/fixed. This is illustrated by examples
>>> in RFC8986.
>>> 
>>>      One example in the beginning of section 3.2 is as follows:
>>>         For example, a network operator may:
>>>            Assign block B::/48 to the SR domain
>>>            Assign a unique B:N::/64 block to each SRv6-enabled node in 
>>> the domain.
>>> After this assignment, the length of the locators of the SIDs in the domain
>>> is 64 bits.
>>> 
>>>      In the end of section 3.2, the text shows the Function fields of SIDs.
>>> The length of function(FUNCT)s is 16 bits.
>>> 
>>>      When a SID is used in the domain, its locator length and function 
>>> length
>>> should have been determined.
>>> 
>>>      When an operator configures a SRv6 flow specification, involving
>>> a SID or a group of SIDs, s/he should have known the locator length and
>>> function length in the SID(s).
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Huaimo