IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Extension Header Insertion

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Tue, 10 December 2019 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 EEB4412011B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 03:29:58 -0800 (PST)
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=ham 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 NcCBSqbY9bRE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 03:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (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 50AC7120073 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 03:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id g17so19638170wro.2 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 03:29:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=IYLw9BprAaAwKQvQ89IFaTw/Tu4VybryUzQHZZch8bw=; b=TL7QSMMe6wbBYBp2Wg4mKcN2VXhlnELZVZ5JjTvWAVQKA9gu64ko24hmL4WUemDO59 IeVv9wAmEUBgX5kUBKsiafYq/Lf+DgD2rW8RNSzmuJKLsPjWTU8aNbl2yS8xpz+kXpcz 90KUg8t/h+RT88Dfy5fNTJs+o1gRcj/m737im0Bsg8etb+qtH5y9xMrwBFrci5CInS1U owcofejaLXBiMEXSilURnNVpY+8j1Yz9OVu/F7lqMdjdSGWRCtRAoIhLdRF2yQlL+poJ 6XeOVzjKfn15mPX7nRv8OQWAPBpzT3O24aIfrdfYQPwgzePRNG0qXz8P9YBx9yPMWxaU ryUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=IYLw9BprAaAwKQvQ89IFaTw/Tu4VybryUzQHZZch8bw=; b=nLkdIE+dhHVQIfvLhYuz2kdkIFgam3b6zEn2TjQkqaaZBEXdWgmNXXVaFJ3lbJ68WC 5WO5u+VD5FxoQtgHJncEchhYWQCKdXVvnUoNwREbsaaxzEunAGX/esWzszfHerJ4Ywhq UaSvNB5RSV+KJGsnBn31q5zsW+xbqi2zVJX4yGRILLi1PdCoIO8+cA1h48ralaZpBt3t ZWnCz8jBaPmQUuzZ1K4GTvtAXV5LRvJ0xA478B6On9lirfbV97tGXXFDy8v5D81svpSF /rSMt9SNT8gYrqc10R7H/R5yISXEfNwtRqXA7ClDyMXBmp0bPAaEl91C0nfbATuLfCFb Zgxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVNZQuC094wqiVgezLRzHy8ikOgff+SiBBdiyfLezH16FnEXJNX 4juOmGUOdSS+rhB+J2RAe11cp4t2
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxCb/GbILiqSJqWsQ4pNhXy/Gb0l+jLUTH8n06YsR1tny0NbkVzeiKeT2K3wLW+8NpN/lJBiQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6a88:: with SMTP id s8mr2588504wru.173.1575977395848; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 03:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broadband.bt.com ([2a00:23a8:4140:0:b87a:799c:1066:6ce3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c4sm2766560wml.7.2019.12.10.03.29.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 03:29:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <AF8A01D3-5DC5-4CA7-813C-B4B3E159CBDF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_154C184B-0DCA-4082-AC99-E67E4CA9B352"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: Extension Header Insertion
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:29:54 +0000
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR05MB5699D9BA988F96E2F41CD390AE580@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <BN7PR05MB5699D9BA988F96E2F41CD390AE580@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7zhN5TK4zHNowYZZZ7TX-_SnB-c>
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:29:59 -0000


> On 9 Dec 2019, at 03:04, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
>  
> This question is posed primarily to the proponents of Extension Header insertion.
>  
> Do you think that it is acceptable to insert a second routing header into a packet that already has one, so the resulting packet looks like the following:
>  
> IPv6 header
> SRH
> SRH
> Upper-layer header
>  
> Would this be common in TI-LFA?
>  

Given that the advantage of SRv6 is always quoted as being that the whole path is available to the receiver for audit purposes, shouldn’t the TI-LFA path be inserted in the existing SRH (if present) so that the packet can be inspected on reception and adherence to policy be verified for the whole path?

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email