Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com> Wed, 09 October 2019 16:41 UTC
Return-Path: <ddukes@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 C0883120888; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=N4LwOmkj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=IbZsvC/T
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 O4ryne9H_6UX; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
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 6578F120145; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16557; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1570639294; x=1571848894; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Srpgv/XCmppV5DsFWyZoGZvUSDYGka0QBD0/o5VB+AY=; b=N4LwOmkjQmUw93aRIiCOHcVT8xDBOH3UiAx+RmzDEC+Z2DGY8RSO+eW8 hi7At/yoJFLjsd/xaniN81dpk5j8+IRunkPh4+sH4wrC2XOyV30kDvPRL OuJG1RqyfAGqAEpPy+ltYMCjQc2yxWnsbvz2F750HQdBlHgyVW0N0MuNz A=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:0QhNuxV+CR+Ygbj2dQHqLI+fzhHV8LGuZFwc94YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSANSJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTFdE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtank2ENlBWURN9HCgOk8TE8H7NBXf
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CvAAB2DJ5d/5tdJa1lGgEBAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF7gRwvUANtViAECyoKhBmDRwOKRZV4hGGBQoEQA1QJAQEBDAEBJQgCAQGEQAIXgjgjOBMCAwkBAQQBAQECAQUEbYUtDIVMAgQSER0BASkOAQ8CAQgOLQQDAgICMBQRAgQOBSKDAAGBHU0DHQECDKVOAoE4iGF1gTKCfQEBBYUIGIIXAwaBNIwOGIFAP4ERJx+CTD6CYQKBOg8vFoJhMoImjQmCLzeFN5ghCoIijCCEdYQEG4I6h06POKdjAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpIoFYcBU7KgGCQVAQFIFPDBcVgzuFFIU/dAGBKJBogTEBgSIBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,276,1566864000"; d="scan'208,217";a="353861608"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Oct 2019 16:41:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (xch-rcd-010.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x99GfX8A026362 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:41:33 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 11:41:32 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 11:41:32 -0500
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 11:41:32 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=D8mERHSWbVbknoyNH2qHJHGy7R7uPMrXjNHB9sAD0iFiZenDEJH2brBGsL/udcA2joGaG2SWOGgT5iIkWalG07DTJQAUJqtxa5/Q1Pvuv3aoVdumbSDsbOKoTPxRQimXz9DX4XXyhWqoFYACSFpVs07ZDB341aWM81sTuMXgCjgPcDtfZiId6r8WN1FJSnkHDoQQ9Clzh02SjRXPS9EMoqjnj+3jw3xs9USPq83TR7gRcaPmZJkKYTyl6mjJiD/02CsWqh2A7PUtevzF1oeV6sTbvsZBjhZ6fIZLLnVyIKF3WsE2UgBZnSbLbPZatjbiDIHlwtOW4OwMwlo/LKvM2A==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Srpgv/XCmppV5DsFWyZoGZvUSDYGka0QBD0/o5VB+AY=; b=Gzh1iAC5lO3voTGmzuD14Z/oyog4w63P7eSdLIeg8oG2wIYCzPbUBVxIL5hDeSkhhZK9tZGxd76HR8422t1SmuwHjys+JjYYUehdguyY7ZidNpq+E7EBw5yXCBlE7o6nEK5scUsJluBMMtgnly4rEC7goQETBCzedHAD/IYQSXo+k5zLkWEOULpx28k6jsObbfyyNc7q3rO+fvNiv0qwLgDiwpiIydkz6SV95bqVkT9EwzOzFRt5K8bzP08FkxMJKPDGx4KNWgr/VBpqEnhWXbeAncDMWldMyVEo/yFSKjkD1XO6ZaSJfCK/qydlHzKoNXqYD5ZlWDbt6dlrTg2IqA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Srpgv/XCmppV5DsFWyZoGZvUSDYGka0QBD0/o5VB+AY=; b=IbZsvC/TMZILX/wQsPgsDd5CgSgleiO3vbpR0lb/KeIsS2dZgF8+Ed02xDbfaMzkdVJPX9uokQ0dQxLdpNZ2GjWgfAJaPq3osDToDAFYNMWa3ggWb4xSV8q8w1iab81VJAsj1zDQEQabyjAyP0EX3xYzIIta7J00MvoGBycUkGc=
Received: from BN7PR11MB2594.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.246.159) by BN7PR11MB2690.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.253.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2327.24; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:41:31 +0000
Received: from BN7PR11MB2594.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a569:a74f:9bf4:81a0]) by BN7PR11MB2594.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a569:a74f:9bf4:81a0%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2327.026; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:41:31 +0000
From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@ietf.org>, Robert Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVY7EbbmZxAIn3xU2/Cg9xvnTrpKdSuWsA
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 16:41:31 +0000
Message-ID: <C4D789FC-1C0F-46CF-9FAF-806B82764EEE@cisco.com>
References: <156766402665.22715.7095504311935416700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156766402665.22715.7095504311935416700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ddukes@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.102]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 17eb32ca-4a72-4a01-e64a-08d74cd78a30
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR11MB2690:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN7PR11MB2690938B69EF88C6FD5F0157C8950@BN7PR11MB2690.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 018577E36E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(979002)(4636009)(346002)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(189003)(199004)(186003)(25786009)(2906002)(66556008)(3846002)(99286004)(76116006)(7736002)(86362001)(26005)(11346002)(66946007)(229853002)(64756008)(66476007)(256004)(316002)(66446008)(6116002)(486006)(14444005)(6436002)(6486002)(66066001)(446003)(476003)(2616005)(76176011)(54906003)(6512007)(4326008)(102836004)(6246003)(54896002)(6506007)(71200400001)(81166006)(5660300002)(236005)(8676002)(606006)(6916009)(14454004)(71190400001)(966005)(81156014)(33656002)(478600001)(36756003)(8936002)(53546011)(6306002)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN7PR11MB2690; H:BN7PR11MB2594.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: FZb/Qi0RWZme0H1hSIRPXZZlWMD6RA5X5TQZr/Z+ORDQkQ92Qc8jpeibabz6snhRjjhUha5LOwLHYwwEGhRAlGL2H+Femw4bA2uSUB0a4tfATdjJ/bKUl5xiUECVUDzbeRWQ3HdwMaSxJclyie1Nzd2dq0Sv9N2dPWv0YXmBO2QGawEhWralXp7oEypho50UrsgH+3PbI2Ks3+76nipU27omFsuL5ImRJkH99o6YLxVs0FJyGsptmgTOj7e39BLmLgTa8YLa1aOogY5IImjPnLMSqZvWNqaWc1rcVRhNMwhT5P0uOSfhzlhUjaCXL/nrRoHzdgF85/JwZf5wFB9R4ajl6HjiVjm9UTTS5pgJJOzTV158tss0ZuNAzyJVKihJaPSARDOoqAm48mJ2LuIK0x5DWOZH5wLEqvCIjsV7qFwiFrliV3q7uXJq/DabuUcXsh2Zoce+6QAGzWK1Dhm/ag==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C4D789FC1C0F46CF9FAF806B82764EEEciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 17eb32ca-4a72-4a01-e64a-08d74cd78a30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Oct 2019 16:41:31.5205 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: t+N/DYMWygM6p4KdlyUk/REYYJ2q2EnuHVDCdDyTa9GMmonJUzypuy2jORczLDSso1SL2SINCDO1Ir3AXfFxSg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR11MB2690
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.20, xch-rcd-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DKGQhQ7xpVC9Q8FtoMKnEv4EGW4>
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: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 16:41:42 -0000
Hi Alvaro, thanks for your detailed review. Please see inline. On Sep 5, 2019, at 2:13 AM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote: Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-22: Discuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The new "Segment Routing Header TLVs" registry (§8.2) includes a range "for TLVs that may change en route". However, I couldn't find a specification for these types of TLVs. The only clues come from §4.3.1 (FIB Entry Is Locally Instantiated SRv6 SID), where it says: Processing this SID modifies the Segments Left and, if configured to process TLVs, it may modify the "variable length data" of TLV types that change en route. Therefore Segments Left is mutable and TLVs that change en route are mutable. The remainder of the SRH (Flags, Tag, Segment List, and TLVs that do not change en route) are immutable while processing this SID. From section 2.1 <quote> 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+----------------------- | Type | Length | Variable length data +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+----------------------- </quote> I think there is some confusion with your interpretation of “variable length data”. As defined in section 2.1 “variable length data” is only the bits following Type and Length. This is why it was placed in quotes as it is normatively defined in section 2.1. Section 2.1 also says: <quote> The highest-order bit of the TLV type (bit 0) specifies whether or not the TLV data of that type can change en route to the packet's final destination: 0: TLV data does not change en route 1: TLV data does change en route </quote> Again ‘data’ refers only to only the “variable length data” not Type nor Length. The WG decided on this language based on RFC8200’s use of the same. I am balloting DISCUSS because the description of "TLVs that may change en route" is not clear or specific enough. I would like to see a clear specification of what "TLVs that may change en route" are, *AND* corresponding instructions to the Designated Experts-to-be. Some related questions that come to mind include: Where can these TLVs be processed/changed? Extension headers are only processed at the node represented by the destination address in the IPv6 header. Section 4.3.1 reiterates this with its definition of SID processing If the data is modified, what about the alignment, should the Padding TLVs be also changed? No, the Length never changes. If no data is left, can the TLV be removed? No, the Length never changes. The instructions above (for the SRV6 SID) seem generic enough to apply to other potential future SIDs, what type of variation is expected? Several TLV types are defined outside of this specification that were originally part of it. One example is https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming-02.txt Thanks, Darren ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) I support Ben's DISCUSS. Adding to his HMAC concerns, §2.1 says that when "processing the SID defined in Section 4.3.1, all TLVs are ignored unless local configuration indicates otherwise (Section 4.3.1.1.1). Thus, TLV and HMAC support is optional for any implementation..." This seems to indicate that, regardless of the HMAC security properties, it will be ignored by default. (2) §4.1.1: "When a source does not require the entire SID list to be preserved in the SRH, a reduced SRH may be used." When does a source require the entire SID list to be preserved? Please provide an example of these cases. (3) §8.1: Given that the SRH Flags Bits are limited, I would like to see instructions to the DEs-to-be about the type of information that may need to be encoded in the Header.
- Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-segmen… Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-se… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-se… Alvaro Retana
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-se… Darren Dukes (ddukes)