Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-07.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 22/9/19 16:52, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hey Mark,
> 
>  
> 
>     The entire use of the word "insertion" is incorrect if the ID is now
>     only proposing encapsulation/tunnelling to carry transit traffic
>     across the SR domain.
> 
> 
> That is not what the discussed draft says. The draft proposes
> encapsulation on ingress edge of the domain, decapsulation on the egress
> edge of the domain AND freedom of insertion, deletion (and IMHO also it
> should also add modification) of any SRH(s) within the encapsulated
> header at any point in the domain. Yes there can be more then one SRH
> per current notion of the draft too during the protection. 
> 
>      The new outgoing segment tunnel header would have the local device
>     as its source address, providing attribution.
> 
> 
> Who told you that ? 
> 
> Just please read network programming draft and you see that "swapping"
> source address is never the case at segment end points: 
> 
> Quote: 
> 
> Node 8 originates packets with the received SRH with HMAC TLV.
> 
>    P15:(*A8*,S5)(A9,S6,S7,S5;SL=3;HMAC)
> 
>    Node 5 receives and verifies the HMAC for the SRH, then forwards the
>    packet to the next segment
> 
>    P16:(*A8*,S7)(A9,S6,S7,S5;SL=2;HMAC)
> 
>    Node 6 receives
> 
>    P17:(*A8*,S6)(A9,S6,S7,S5;SL=1;HMAC)
> 
>    Node 9 receives
> 
>    P18:(*A8*,A9)(A9,S6,S7,S5;SL=0;HMAC)
> 
> 
> 
> Please notice that encapsulated packet by A8 has source address of A8.
> And that never changes through the entire domain ! 
> 
> 
> Are you now questioning the entire concept of SRv6 architecture ?

Curiously enough you seem to be specifying an architecture by breaking
that of the protocol it relies on.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492