Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 04 April 2024 19:12 UTC
Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 C5A53C14F6A8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IW14AyOMSMPI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C5FFC14F6AE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56e0c00e7fcso1522377a12.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1712257935; x=1712862735; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=x2CWUgDvATyz0qI9ENRBGDmKuRSVemoCaeEIxyQ2Krc=; b=MeQhLL8Qmn+J7NhVsZaueb1a1XqGZq1NxSBdu3tkmQ+W1jhL7ELVeDPxOa9eSiiTDy 80Wh5AmC8G8snEn0kDlR0OzUOtugum3drBzpsCNQBx0EII3aBkfH2V73QH1seDSWsLQh WwRqzhUlWniOv/+dlBdVGQyIkVFSMQuy3yJ0wYdhCAWKledrctZjg2eR7u7dq36lMEDo 1XeVVatwzYsIRy3lI+hyKTqDLG+sttJ6M/3Q8/2nDShIeX872et5OA8giFpx0oN1qLka m2N0YIzVkCtGs8VZkWNVIj6cS1+3GoJ4j9ymiT3yPypU6CkC2Kg9v9QfP8Q6bfeRghWx g7DA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712257935; x=1712862735; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=x2CWUgDvATyz0qI9ENRBGDmKuRSVemoCaeEIxyQ2Krc=; b=os/1/vf9jQOZ4viSPoyXg0HxeREj5JgduhLyK0kBzIP94Qmng15BIaqfTamZ94Yni9 GBVpnGQ9uzTKw4T6ic7776W7UQ4x8GJwwgjpClJkmopJwqWWeSS5qqCq+ZQXgSCudEix VaF4OTUiLB24drCQ7mKwpsE93/638zCd5d0L0QQASzNffn1fQtUXKo8emkW1279/MPss 5mSiH0Fn2aLxHxTZVursZUv1CDqspq30USAy8KGP7ajD44vEQJz2ZPS8shS3ewh5DKVn ccLqLGP0jzZyNz2auQQVnxWt41ncwmTymrNcxsquoA3mZFfXvPPHq0Tkb/39b5GdZM9V q59A==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXoJRA5uaPecLoZfJQoEEUob2r/C87QRarumpI1lNdeGj6VgDTvZj84l8ZItUvQk3mFvqZtTG5+LIhSOEJh
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzB8KSierQYk9KlHJ2hrUcNvktRkMhqAG2BzwlqA73kJMLabofY D5+xZdR43JPdxAsWGWwKsFzgNwhHj8W9loe5qNkH2jl6qNqNNpAZgVGJj3QF2zznwabtrr8mqF+ JbZ00nTWYKz5CTV1GmzPpz1N8jBPeKtm4SFQygA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGWOKjnZxQVtSUtcxyZESHsIgEawBPROVn3STrWgoinvpmUAkwWiQU+SCNCU3xd9r6GeRRoINF5GJEAzpcV4X8=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d490:0:b0:566:d333:45e8 with SMTP id s16-20020a50d490000000b00566d33345e8mr460321edi.20.1712257934868; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 12:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMESszUUdDw-xnDtZKqz75g6SXZ+7mXtZujBKwN+hxypC-Kuw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESswF_NnpK7_xk9OXmmocU8P7pne0gmPjCkapXEQVfQA2zQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHT6gR--Qw7W0ZqyfdEupTpLAjeJ5OLTTjzM6NvQ87zdizgb8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xHNgzhmgC6mPrauSQZ6Q4mcgD_FOp_uWqRpz=pFwa7_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHT6gR-q9B60fcvT7nTfErS8M+hUm+x8zoez0KkYiPtTthaYYg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S348-_7Xx8VsbdMpK3WLhprCWzx_hs-MQEPFdKtY8MMhrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHT6gR8oPH3o7FKx2pTSN=CbysCLcZ-pP98ZwuhGBxPNi0vSXA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36c4tEbbiCAFLskQ1zSgi2the3H1_Sq8Jf7ZBhE=ezbFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMH7hVffnF5YJY2hAUCNR5w6eRr65W1KnyyR5xjUe0WASw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S37HV3yQSfnYyQnw=A=_Mtnm4H53pSCWxpDvT7zHLx_HPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37HV3yQSfnYyQnw=A=_Mtnm4H53pSCWxpDvT7zHLx_HPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 21:12:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEhxS8FswKvH62u6W6p6xgx9G0X_kyx8UROc6woQ4wzmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Francois Clad <fclad.ietf@gmail.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, spring-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f8df8606154a1d8f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9FPlzYrmEouYinxoVWvBUtVke44>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 04 Apr 2024 19:12:25 -0000
Tom, > SR aware routers to update L4 checksum That is completely unrealistic. Show me the box which can forward all interfaces at 800 Gb/s and read entire each packet and compute upper layer checksum on it. If anything just do encap and move on. Thx, R. On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 7:06 PM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024, 12:30 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: > >> Hi Tom, >> >> Yes I am with you here. >> >> However let's observe that this is pretty common best practice to disable >> any hardware offload on the box when running tcpdump or wireshark. >> >> In fact some implementations (F5) do it for you automagically :) >> >> And as it has been said based on the fact that hardware offload does not >> understand any Routing Headers it really does not matter if it is there or >> not :) >> > > Robert, > > tcpdump is independent of hardware offload. If the checksum is incorrect > per the packet contents we'll see bad checksums reported if we snoop > packets, but like I said, we can't differentiate the bad from the good. > > Offload becomes an issue for NICs that do protocol specific checksum > offload. We lose the capability on RX which is an inconvenience, on TX we'd > need to change the implementation to ensure the checksum is not computed by > HW. > > If SR without SRH is needed, then I believe the best answer is for SR > aware routers to update L4 checksum when they change DA per NAT > requirements. This solves tcpdump as well as offloads. > > Tom > > >> Cheers, >> R. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:11 PM Tom Herbert <tom= >> 40herbertland.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024, 11:48 AM Francois Clad <fclad.ietf@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Tom, >>>> >>>> Tcpdump can determine that this packet is steered onto an SRv6 path by >>>> checking if the DA matches the SRv6 SID block. >>>> >>> >>> Francois, >>> >>> That would require introducing external state to tcpdump for correct >>> operation. This would be a major divergence in both implementation and ops >>> compared to how things work today. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Francois >>>> >>>> On 4 Apr 2024 at 16:59:59, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024, 9:39 AM Francois Clad <fclad.ietf@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mark, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tcpdump/wireshark decodes the IPv6 header just fine. I do not see any >>>>>> issue here. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Francois, >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that tcpdump can't tell that a packet is an SR packet >>>>> if there's no SRH. For instance, if the checksum is not maintained to be >>>>> correct in the wire then tcpdump will show that the packet has a bad L4 >>>>> checksum, but there's no way to tell if that is an SR packet or if the >>>>> checksum is actually bad. This will make debugging checksum failures in the >>>>> network much more difficult, and this affects our ability to debug all >>>>> traffic not just SR packets. >>>>> >>>>> Tom >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Francois >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4 Apr 2024 at 14:09:43, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024, 22:50 Francois Clad, <fclad.ietf@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Alvaro, all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RFC 8754 allows the SR source node to omit the SRH when it contains >>>>>>>> redundant information with what is already carried in the base IPv6 header. >>>>>>>> Mandating its presence for C-SID does not resolve any problem because it >>>>>>>> will not provide any extra information to the nodes along the packet path. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How are troubleshooting tools like 'tcpdump' going to know how to >>>>>>> automatically decode these packets as SRv6 packets if there is no SRH? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Specifically for the case of middleboxes attempting to verify the >>>>>>>> upper-layer checksum, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - An SRv6-unaware middlebox will not be able to verify the >>>>>>>> upper-layer checksum of SRv6 packets in flight, regardless of whether an >>>>>>>> SRH is present or not. >>>>>>>> - An SRv6 and C-SID aware middlebox will be able to find the >>>>>>>> ultimate DA and verify the upper-layer checksum in flight, regardless of >>>>>>>> whether an SRH is present or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Furthermore, transit nodes (e.g., middleboxes) should not attempt >>>>>>>> to identify SRv6 traffic based on the presence of the SRH, because they >>>>>>>> will miss a significant portion of it: all the best-effort or Flex-Algo >>>>>>>> traffic steered with a single segment may not include an SRH, even without >>>>>>>> C-SID. Instead, RFC 8402, 8754, and 8986 define identification rules based >>>>>>>> on the SRv6 SID block. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Francois >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2 Apr 2024 at 19:44:51, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [Moving this conversation up on your mailbox. :-) ] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [Thanks, Robert and Tom for your input!] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We want to hear from more of you, including the authors. Even if >>>>>>>>> you already expressed your opinion in a different thread, please chime in >>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We will collect feedback until the end of this week. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alvaro. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On March 28, 2024 at 8:06:18 AM, Alvaro Retana ( >>>>>>>>> aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Focusing on the C-SID draft, some have suggested requiring the >>>>>>>>> presence of the SRH whenever C-SIDs are used. Please discuss whether that >>>>>>>>> is the desired behavior (or not) -- please be specific when debating the >>>>>>>>> benefits or consequences of either behavior. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please keep the related (but independent) discussion of requiring >>>>>>>>> the SRH whenever SRv6 is used separate. This larger topic may impact >>>>>>>>> several documents and is better handled in a different thread (with 6man >>>>>>>>> and spring included). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alvaro >>>>>>>>> -- for spring-chairs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>>>>>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>>>>>>> Administrative Requests: >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>>>>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>>>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Robert Raszuk
- [IPv6] Requiring Tunneling - subject change Joel Halpern
- Re: [IPv6] Requiring Tunneling - subject change Martin Vigoureux (Nokia)
- Re: [IPv6] Requiring Tunneling - subject change Bob Hinden
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Requiring Tunneling - subject change Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Francois Clad
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Francois Clad
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Francois Clad
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Ole Troan
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Michael Richardson
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Cheng Li
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Ole Trøan
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Michael Richardson
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Francois Clad
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when u… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when u… Michael Richardson
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when u… Bob Hinden
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when u… Antoine FRESSANCOURT
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when u… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when u… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SI… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [IPv6] [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when u… Mark Smith