IETF Logo Mail Archive

draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 15 March 2018 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997D712DA00 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 6gnQl2-konxE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 CFBA112D80E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2FHsttG010624 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:59:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=C1qfv0Z9uHwoVH3JJlc+oPiyQzBZ7a5jGhFCm+r3RZ8=; b=pNS9uW1lXHMaYLtuiP4Sh1QCVq0ZGLFWW+s2uGJYgqPsHw5TLxNLvRj3M8DcV/YJR+zo qKtyaetmhkLeZD9WRNaTCImwTMABPJ0LcRDvjwh4D0xwxFEuyA/Hz8JFfCEyMa9X1q2A UPKQYp/VEB4I621i+wvzPqfuMfTAO6N/hPzqnx5yA7cvsvtPAfXP3HOprxbpABDC4WoS EeSgjm8NMTmBWQ86gViY6TsaqKZJTnECQ4kCBpDohU2c2n0zYtHd9/FZhop7Q/5mXzw+ UNjyasGAqTuJ5ULIsztNkZNgF04OU1OvM4UXUu72Bz4Hwi0Hr9/xElIDOakxQy1TE3/s GQ==
Received: from nam03-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03lp0018.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.18]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2gqqp68r4t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:59:15 -0700
Received: from SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.67.146) by SN6PR05MB4062.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.66.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.588.7; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:59:13 +0000
Received: from SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::583c:393b:d2e1:2790]) by SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::583c:393b:d2e1:2790%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0588.013; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:59:13 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
Thread-Index: AdO8hus71JheB9XqTgycZQ/2rfm3mw==
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:59:13 +0000
Message-ID: <SN6PR05MB42408ACF221B345AD3EC9715AED00@SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN6PR05MB4062; 7:aYBmQycMsvG1YNGq790V/ak4d8f3iuFp+gvcPosWkvxRaekerAsiyPNaSdcdgSYTX9Zl6NNy3Mzu34X65Q/LvzgTpMQ7ChrTaT4pPP67EXRWKo0dB1BI4hPKOrJqUy0yu5UDTxo+ksdtUswpygaThn9u9+QheSCSTzzsAU9RDq+sOB7jfRc+GkUFkIw8LiNO7iSkgo41JsKq2hjq6Bu7um3PRFwevmY7PbJy3rh2aTKyVAZeuErLCoP40FzyCA2w
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1da0bd05-f010-4eb9-4379-08d58a9e7654
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR05MB4062;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR05MB4062:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR05MB4062F831DAD032AE1FE4A58FAED00@SN6PR05MB4062.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3231221)(944501244)(52105095)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:SN6PR05MB4062; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN6PR05MB4062;
x-forefront-prvs: 0612E553B4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(39380400002)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(74316002)(305945005)(7736002)(2900100001)(106356001)(14454004)(97736004)(33656002)(8936002)(316002)(105586002)(2351001)(99286004)(7696005)(5660300001)(3660700001)(6916009)(3846002)(26005)(53936002)(186003)(478600001)(25786009)(68736007)(2501003)(5250100002)(2906002)(6116002)(6436002)(102836004)(6506007)(8676002)(9686003)(5640700003)(3280700002)(55016002)(81156014)(81166006)(86362001)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR05MB4062; H:SN6PR05MB4240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: eSwEb6t+5DMS0me1YXgLoRp9eWyqz1Age2kVzyvBJ7l/PQsf8dV6GFAuvyrhrQsrXENffvepoqmp5AufH1i4xTM6JnsEAyBn3uKfnS0UPaBxb05n7+EcgYaxxjAH2wPdXqRfLjKpifnCQOHZ2bRAQ000CKjR/lcZlvfmcstmqdfquss9Cf5vOPwHQJquVtIXVt/YAnntGaKQWSXuBt51OkKbO4SI+gCtFDk65cArO/uQRr4LHW2w9oqs9CooCHUvvfRXnVz0OCZjSaoczbFz5PrR8Hr0vA4HUA1E3PsB5BfzP6iCyHwA+ELplNEmsL5EQK0VLfWLtQBj6sxry+m/Tw==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1da0bd05-f010-4eb9-4379-08d58a9e7654
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Mar 2018 17:59:13.6867 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR05MB4062
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-15_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803150195
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4HGGvp5huBYV3KcuqJ2Yp-Vcxh4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:59:19 -0000

Folks,

While I am supportive of SRv6, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header cannot be evaluated in isolation from draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming. Therefore, 6man should do one of the following:

- Merge draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header and draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming into a single draft
- Keep the two drafts separate, but last call them simultaneously in the 6man WG

Rational follows:

1) Using only information contained by draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, it is impossible to build an SRv6 implementation

Draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header defines two SID types (END and END.X). Neither of these can be the last member of a SID list. Therefore, it is impossible to construct an SRH using only these. You need SIDs that are defined in draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming to build a SRH

2) Draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming occasionally contradicts draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

For example, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header says:

" It is assumed in this document that the SRH is added to the packet by
   its source, consistently with the source routing model defined in
   [RFC8200].  For example:

   o  At the node originating the packet (host, server).

   o  At the ingress node of an SR domain where the ingress node
      receives an IPv6 packet and encapsulates it into an outer IPv6
      header followed by a Segment Routing header."

However, Section 5.2 of Draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming describes a scenario in which a transit router inserts an SRH between the IPv6 header and IPv6 payload.

3) The SRH contains a SID list and SIDs are numbered from IPv6 address space. However, the SID addressing architecture is not defined in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header. It is defined in draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming.

4) Draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming contains content that might surprise 6man participants

For example, Draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming describes several scenarios in which the IPv6 header is followed by two instances of the SRH (See sections 4.13 and 5.2). RFC 8200 recommends against this

Furthermore, draft-filfils-spring-srv6-network-programming defines several SID types that can only occur as the final member of a SID list. 6man should examine whether the information in these SIDs should be encoded in a routing extension header or as an IPv6 destination option. This also may require coordination with the BESS WG, as many of these SIDs are redundant with MPLS VPN labels that have already been defined in BESS.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email