Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding

Reji Thomas <rejithomas.d@gmail.com> Thu, 19 September 2019 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <rejithomas.d@gmail.com>
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 BF5DC120114; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 SKKvRf_kjEAZ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x933.google.com (mail-ua1-x933.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::933]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA2EE1200BA; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x933.google.com with SMTP id f9so1453210uaj.4; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OfMkznHSz/zbJ6IZ6Lp0MYeyqBDGG6gbIam/3s3B8tk=; b=Gn3JLsehBHLocNQZVCod9HQBmx1btUgEV3bfwKvjrMJqMxRQVhhnjZPSwHL48rBjuP /OG9pumMoZtyeACYocSkjVwls7e953chY5muGcOqcDA2viZW7tMMch4gByNXCybqpqBl gFy9USphBwjSFrM8uK5K9IWuGuXno7Wt5Abda4qtPt4gs/Bgvw/AsStC/5WOvHLnFMdR RVITgL6SSymR2HvuwBUc5kV+TGLf1w7t8hVd9UItHTozT6JWsS2pcrzMWCZHrhidb1Bx nMkW7Q3LcSXZW9slNSma4nVN5Q+Ku+UyVwWY4LHXDkroW6SUySgWH+W/OK/a3F5pDX3I p9Rg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OfMkznHSz/zbJ6IZ6Lp0MYeyqBDGG6gbIam/3s3B8tk=; b=VwxMgWGM+oh7EZ24Kmis6UgvKHfRWxatBhBuuFVd6Wx7yZYIHPPW8Lt9j+pHNavGSW Q74fOvi2I+5U2vjqXojeIuAwd2KIbp0clnr654cQO1HHJQDtrLVBUfntSNiWGnBSruuI 49xQRYehssMCee7HmlI3RjMcBIa+bD/zqMm+7/MP9dOrKwpZTXbdmUZQaoZ4Edk9Both Um/1qkX0Y+o023wiHeb+jB2xajKGQl3Ld4W/ns2BmHJeQLTPQxY+3ZEXrszR5HCZyqXT ndOAVYC0sriNDwWSSN3xiWn30m9ploFZHZ62ahUNemE0SGvtGvM/++HOYruYuofxtSMQ 9/kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUVKGAz/t4lDAMt+sSQFRB742TCtE2+qmIJX/1hphU/pa352ojQ bAfUtKhVkyNvNnzBEu0A7FI3LwSR6Thm4hbQ3w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqywG7FMzCWFeR5yBvhmhLMmyiZ+ZHyi8ETFVZ/HQADi9vk5593mro6ggQoP+oU1F5s7dy/3hah5eGI+pNE2jT0=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:539d:: with SMTP id k29mr6614923uaa.67.1568920486602; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHd-QWtA21+2Sm616Fnw0D-eB7SNb_BeG8-A-MCLLFgTwSpOsg@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB54632F09C712ADB30138CFA9AEBE0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR19MB3415D21403394F8129A4BAD8FCB90@BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <30491F13-C652-45C3-AB2B-95F765FBB4EA@juniper.net> <65C5CB04-3A2F-4F83-A7C8-2045154F93AE@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5463EC3250F2A303A3641839AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <91CBADAD-EFE6-46E1-A9D3-DAA111357179@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMGyUFRPDqCBo5SbLX486o_9GLpM6Zxf8KSt1voWiqhkGQ@mail.gmail.com> <E8D473B5-3E8D-4339-9A79-0CAE30750A55@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMFOy5PyTo=jPJkVrQOctdWjsTbD=7ix-2n89vodKzT3gQ@mail.gmail.com> <2F604D74-51CF-4F2F-AEA9-1CBDEEA9B9F7@gmail.com> <F09C2D09-D769-4817-AF73-97D6ED1BC4BF@lapishills.com> <201909120857387140042@chinatelecom.cn> <1568259664564.62561@bell.ca> <CAO42Z2wQ_8GEE+=nAMFBj+ape9Vf7fARVoOwGdCiUxdffkyXgw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB5463A04B05B4BD6AA294F7F0AEB00@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6EA6F7C0-BEB2-4749-A6AB-62B1337213B2@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5463426F1668202EE5F183EFAE8F0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <634900D2-FBCE-47CF-8907-C8B9CB3A4102@cisco.com> <CALx6S34=Tw-u4Hz-07-Rs-GjsungkqnD_fMoQnGc17u3VJhY1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFqxzqYr7g2jzwJrhvjL_DXYZsDzbzqx01cy0zB1aBweDde1XQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yrjwRMykWxmEo5=18fMvuZdMtuyz5g1p=8oSzp_ro9Vw@mail.gmail.com> <52FDA21F-E860-45E2-846A-43B969DEDC87@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMFjCcQt7FLf9NjfEKruEYktU0iJEs8Q+qFG8Pjkt7jDaA@mail.gmail.com> <9EA2D501-4382-4071-A89C-8C593B66E2F1@juniper.net> <CA+b+ERmnw412sboPtMow6=WUFK_FW2iO+rQxOu4dQ0yV2cuukQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA8Zg7G-Aa+mVWxax3EqJOs9V7T8Bu=mfvng8Om9bEw59D7Orw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMFuQqMcGdjLT0piyuyUNpgLka7Pn5suA+LRi+rzFeKwow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFuQqMcGdjLT0piyuyUNpgLka7Pn5suA+LRi+rzFeKwow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Reji Thomas <rejithomas.d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:44:35 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA8Zg7HtdoMtzqg6o04TjAnyg8NUaoijVi40NoUPeERcycGssA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, Dirk Steinberg <dirk@lapishills.com>, "xiechf@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, Srihari Sangli <ssangli=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048ecd30592ecc41b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7y3GtM2lY2Ftit8ijJVYDzFJbOs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 19 Sep 2019 19:14:51 -0000

Hi Robert,

>>I do not know what is the difference between IPv6 Destination Address in
the fixed header and "final destination". Where do you carry "final
destination" address ?

See Section 4.4 in RFC 8200.  Hope its clear what's the final destination
and the context in which it is used.

      Segments Left       8-bit unsigned integer.  Number of route
                          segments remaining, i.e., number of explicitly
                          listed intermediate nodes still to be visited
                          before reaching the final destination.


Regards

Reji


On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:26 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> IPv6 fixed header has only one destination address. So TE midpoint is
> either a packet's destination or not. It can not be both.
>
> I do not know what is the difference between IPv6 Destination Address in
> the fixed header and "final destination". Where do you carry "final
> destination" address ?
>
> Many  thx,
> R.
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:17 PM Reji Thomas <rejithomas.d@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>>
>> >>Well the crux of the matter is that you still need to process all EHs at each IPv6 destination which here means each transit node per RFC8200
>>
>>
>>  From RFC 8200 that doesn't seem to be the case or at least as I understand. See  Section 4.1 note 1 and note 3. Am I missing something?
>>
>>
>>
>> IPv6 header
>>       Hop-by-Hop Options header
>>       Destination Options header (note 1)
>>       Routing header
>>       Fragment header
>>       Authentication header (note 2)
>>       Encapsulating Security Payload header (note 2)
>>       Destination Options header (note 3)
>>       Upper-Layer header
>>
>>       note 1: for options to be processed by the first destination that
>>               appears in the IPv6 Destination Address field plus
>>               subsequent destinations listed in the Routing header.
>>
>>       note 2: additional recommendations regarding the relative order of
>>               the Authentication and Encapsulating Security Payload
>>               headers are given in [RFC4303 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4303>].
>>
>>       note 3: for options to be processed only by the final destination
>>               of the packet.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Reji
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 9:00 PM Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. PPSI and PSSI leverages the DOHs in IPv6 architecture
>>>> better. The SRv6+ drafts explain the usecases better FYI.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well the crux of the matter is that you still need to process all EHs at
>>> each IPv6 destination which here means each transit node per RFC8200. That
>>> is regardless what any other spec says ... unfortunately.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> spring@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>
>