Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 21 November 2016 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 3B92C1297A7; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 RIQPx4RitZwC; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x234.google.com (mail-ua0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::234]) (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 51553129793; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x234.google.com with SMTP id b35so235650541uaa.3; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:55:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2q/g7HUjZqkG/yGLPp89cRq1nlFueM+oThN5qR6hDYA=; b=iSeYMJ84/ehuyna0OgNNFptatj1FH2foYWZ4aRVM4j2W7BEgQGBkDP73IK17XFE99u leAmtG+XpjRySlkxbYGZqnmMJKEQaSmwZDTGsx13CqTQfRAq05OSxwJL9AQXrnuKSViw JaIKRvzVKZwMVaiAMQ2+Ms44qV3Hw1yrkbc5wS4ZFQof3ta0rif+y8+Ygd82PPR0vw5P orsr2Yf4yWhPXzGxNE7BdTadIrDkz6LnTkM0v7uDrSJsVrCIZsM4kUFST/FZSVtoPX28 SdWO+jSjVtn8oBCdjOT2F4mMasjoBKZVnsEpCPzf7suutFDzPU3wF3kIEyH60FG+XU/1 ttJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2q/g7HUjZqkG/yGLPp89cRq1nlFueM+oThN5qR6hDYA=; b=HolftHZiqXTiybvRQusQ3Q6grpcRb03qnSQrj4Cd4DHEK4KacgZbJMH3rKrX9dX9+k l0E6MOc43x0WIlBb3rdfEHDVrVfBYsBmYzgnVVAba0qT/tjFHSlqjm7B6ybilNMS8q2G RyMtFu2vwP4iXwC2XDD6U8r1CImb2XJivjpaZBC4jtJ2iYCsZVMjaFQC/c8zafn9Y+zI T97W/SdOe+XCUxSSXIA4vWZkOBV2dkjjaNFg/efzP4QuUaxUOEkrZg5mFYXyLotX9wce VYZqN6EK48l9voGQiHYcLfHTmedoO0smWOK7zlf9zqpHvsOQlUg7CEflB/uvP2FjEDFc 4NVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02PXxIGkjlEiKmGGz9RK6I7CL/nSKTILB3GSVIS9q7m4U9Fx1GuKJ2lRgXfMNxw1b7hv3b+ykZciWtWXA==
X-Received: by 10.176.0.52 with SMTP id 49mr8350558uai.9.1479758136449; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:55:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.48.212 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.159.48.212 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:55:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34VKLPctnMrKQB+AxYFKHzDnYv9woLdqCbtYXgJ7sLy+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <451D4151-B805-4A2E-8BAC-B6627C0B669C@employees.org> <CAJE_bqczRSZYWC3tDLXvxRMzqnV9nDjYjUddyRHtwfpGEXvm5w@mail.gmail.com> <85517D4C-488E-4A05-9E2C-5D4604DF69B8@gmail.com> <CABdyVt421A8Lsy91TvNRg8w444X04tx-woY3gLj3U0-hxL53og@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34VKLPctnMrKQB+AxYFKHzDnYv9woLdqCbtYXgJ7sLy+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 06:55:35 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yB8SS=991=qpMm3K-YdBQbLgZL9yeScBiDPq=QmR7Afw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146785e13a4d10541d50a43"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/F_oKGV4TBFh5McFWJ1SEw-Qn3yw>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, 6man-chairs@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: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:55:39 -0000

I think this discussion about specific details of specific inserted EHs is
irrelevant.

EH encapsulation vs insertion is as fundamental as whether you believe in
the layered computer networking model or not, where information is added or
removed to PDUs at layer boundaries via encapsulation as they go up and
down the layers, and PDUs are left alone when they travel within a layer
between layer senders and receivers.

It also relates to the difference between what End Systems functions are
and what Intermediate Systems functions are.

Inserting into a previously created PDU, at the same layer, doesn't comply
with that model. It never will regardless of the type of EH inserted,
because insertion is not part of that model.

On 22 Nov. 2016 4:44 am, "Tom Herbert" <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Hemant Singh <hemantietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There doesn’t seem to be an evidence that there is an interoperability
>>> problem.
>>>
>>>
>> Hemant,
>
>
>> A SR deployment uses source routers from different vendors.  One vendors
>> uses "add an EH header" while another uses the encapsulation method to add
>> the SR info  The intermediate routers have to read the encoded SR
>> instructions for forwarding.  How is the intermediate node instructed to
>> decapsulate and read vs. look at an added EH by the source?  Maybe SR deals
>> with this issue and if so, please let me know which of several SR I-D's
>> cover the details.
>>
>> Rather or not encapsulation is used, the SR EH would be an extension of
> the outermost IP header. Intermediate routers would not be concerned with
> rather the packet is encapsulated except when they are the terminal point
> of the encapsulation (need to decapsulate). So the SR EH is processed the
> same by intermediate nodes whether encapsulation is used or not.
>
> Likewise, Inband OAM has mixed router/switch vendor deployment.  One
>> vendor uses add/delete EH while another uses encap.  How are all
>> routers/switches instructed to use which method?
>>
>> This is inband OAM in an EH or within an encapsulation? If it's in an
> extension header then a similar concept would apply, the EH, presumably a
> HBH option, would need to be set in the outer IP headers so that it is
> processed be intermediate nodes. If an option is writable in then the
> encapsulation might need to copy the information to an EH in the original
> packet if necessary. If the OAM is part of encapsulation then its operation
> would be specified in the encapsulation.
>
>
>> When folks get a chance, could they please also reply to my questions on
>> Inband OAM and SR in earlier emails from today.   It is useful to the
>> mailer to articulate what show stopper problem did one encounter that one
>> could not use encapsulation.   Only once such issues are closed, one can
>> start the other document that would cover pitfalls of add/delete EH by
>> intermediate nodes.
>>
>> Note that the suggestion to use encapsulation is not normative, it does
> not provide exactly the same behavior as inserting EH would (for instance
> ECMP handling would be very different). I think the interaction between EH
> and encapsulation needs to specified as part of the encapsulation, for
> instance the question of what EHs must be copied from the packet being
> encapsulated to the outer packet will need to be addressed.
>
> Tom
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Hemant
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>