Re: [IPv6 SR] Regarding 128 bits IPv6 address in Segment List of SRH

"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Fri, 10 February 2017 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.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 AFA2E129572; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 01:39:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 5x2RcgFZHSne; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 01:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32516129446; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 01:31:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4492; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486719113; x=1487928713; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=lS1FbJQgQakWPTEFoERq/7fk+3x2lpy8k2w9x+W1LyQ=; b=FbrWZC2zW7kynh10P1FyKvJgiFESom4YoSZP27+vvxkfb5IpwU6NrKIB NVbCaCQlC+tItTkxPQlRmPD37fTyZ/egdHQcDPLRBfVZYzcUklCZcgTyU h1uX1lnnDx1hGowUyesa1A6BldFyTeJUmj/40TxL6NmkNX/CFDcrQPbJp c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DvAQDvh51Y/4oNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgygqgWoHg1KKCJFtH5U2gg2GIgIaglc/GAECAQEBAQEBAWIohGk?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDASMRRQUHBAIBCBEBAwEBAQICIwMCAgIwFAECBggBAQQOBYlwCK9dgiWLV?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BC4VBggUIgmKEVIMGLoIxAQSbcgGKDog?= =?us-ascii?q?FgXuFF4lziCyKaAEfOH5PFTwRAYQyHYFhdYkSgQwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,140,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="383910407"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Feb 2017 09:31:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1A9VphY014038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:31:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:31:51 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:31:51 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [IPv6 SR] Regarding 128 bits IPv6 address in Segment List of SRH
Thread-Topic: [IPv6 SR] Regarding 128 bits IPv6 address in Segment List of SRH
Thread-Index: AdKC3shnhVQAsSeqr02qRN73fuHSc///1RUA//7E0wCAAv1cAA==
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:31:51 +0000
Message-ID: <2DE89697-41FA-4389-9CDE-A91B7ADE37D1@cisco.com>
References: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885086FA74@blreml501-mbx> <3E1CCF0A-41E5-49E9-82FA-BC96F689A69D@cisco.com> <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885086FE9C@blreml501-mbx>
In-Reply-To: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885086FE9C@blreml501-mbx>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.196.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2A946BD17083C743B2B111A3E81B5906@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/86Y5sSNcUCjibJ0byz_Pb6NmgoY>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:39:42 -0000

Hi Veerendranath,

yes, an SR-IPv6 SID is a 128-bit IPv6 addresses. 

The semantic associated to the SID is given by the control plane. We have already documented the signaling of the SIDs in ISIS, OSPF and BGP. Currently we have defined Node-SIDs (representing a node) and Adjacency-SIDs (instruction to forward out to the interface the SID is allocated to).

In the IPv6 dataplane a SID being an IPv6 address, it makes the SID a global IPv6 address (even in the case of Adj-SIDs). This of course is orthogonal to the control plane that may or may not advertise such address.

I.e., you may have an Adj-SID as a global IPv6 address that it is not advertised by any routing protocol in the network (which implies of course that the packet will have to first reach the node using a node-SID).

The use of LL addresses as SID has not been contemplated for the simple reason that a router may well allocated the same address to all links so it is not a reliable mechanism for forwarding. This will be fixed in the next revision of the ospfv3 draft (isis draft is ok).

s.



> On Feb 10, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Previdi,
> Thanks for your reply. 
> 
> As per first version of draft, Adj-SID is also  IPv6 prefix. 
> 
> 4.2.2.  Adjacency-SID
> 
>   The Adjacency-SID identifies a given interface.  In the SR
>   architecture a node may advertise one or more Adj-SIDs allocated to a
>   given interface so to force the forwarding of the packet (when
>   received with that particular Adj-SID) into the interface, regardless
>   the routing entry for the packet destination.  The same is defined
>   for SR-IPv6: a node may advertise a given IPv6 prefix which is
>   associated to the SR semantic of "send out the packet to the
>   interface this prefix is allocated to".  Here also, the SID is in
>   fact the IPv6 prefix.
> 
> As per my understanding  "segment list in SRH is global IPv6 prefixes, If we need to include Adj SID to segment list then Adj-SID is also global IPv6 prefix". 
> Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> Veerendranath
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] 
> Sent: 09 February 2017 22:41
> To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
> Cc: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; ospf@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IPv6 SR] Regarding 128 bits IPv6 address in Segment List of SRH
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the first version of the draft (draft-previdi-6man-segment-routing-header) had a description of Node-SID and Adj-SID. Later, in order to simplify the document, we removed the descriptions and focused the document into the SRH format.
> 
> I think it will be helpful to re-introduce a section on the two main SID types (Node, Adjacency). I’m working on an update for the next version.
> 
> Thanks.
> s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Authors,
>> 
>> I am requesting your clarification regarding usage of Adj-SID in SRH header
>