Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-07.txt
Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com> Sun, 22 September 2019 13:52 UTC
Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 E0CF1120018; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 vrHgzPrjJhqM; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 83DFE12009E; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id a2so7336175pfo.10; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6pyvSDdwR63u/OAPmf3TJAl2RWWrlNNnxF+2aR9j9aA=; b=m8X5PDvF8I+lK44c6FR/a4ujkrUXCyHZdqkUPjJ0mcEtKBCbI47ZYYABu9rjPvyjG8 OhfCPvgGjHm1f4ZPZ7/pSUxVE7El+wXTbayuV94+o53p88rEwXnlqKEkbreycoHIsmT/ X9CkXUcIx0hUmKLpU/dWDOhwkzIzhZe4AJJuiZF1kvCTWED6IAMYdV6t87ZiRU88+qYJ 4SYek8qQmA0bwokvmJXODzLjXiXOjpndEFCFyLUQlgVnB7QNoLekDYJBzyiGRCsQC9jE GUl+v/aVhhm+lLT/uxxSdbAejLrWnwQDSGEysgZk05+SYIA53LIj3kZJS9ndcrhdbm1m fj2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6pyvSDdwR63u/OAPmf3TJAl2RWWrlNNnxF+2aR9j9aA=; b=ppzItX7XPSRColOD4P0Ly8sTrvwvxG7DTniwTDbSRio4ONUE+h9gpmy+u9uiOAavmi d7zqb/OAQPkbkc5zLRIrc7+V5h2qkCgPCYwbVwAWC9Ma8BMmzJRtjubyTDRDXQY+drZ8 cvQGtZegnH4vBrYjxr5eYRxB1vqBg4ZsqDJ1niU+ffSesjJ0Qyl9q9rN84vsl1hkjxOK NoCjklRcTOFlqFz/NF3Z+zDthMRiWNRF36wIjlByXLovLrwwGGIN/41o9m89fnQW7Png n03thdxA6iDFRw3szj2GJxoJy1qvjnmOmUwwcRpPAHr4nfmobUxLe+NA+EVEZZ7JlPiL H0lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV0TkKfm31jgkxrWuElaFSrZm6OP87DauZN+2AcmH9N2Uu3Lz/h vDOglaRm5OKyyJ+HrGcWJOfdnfXX/ENPljmL4eo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwGlKajctpVc5iyhruWk3NQoDttrlU92HhBTFaFvJUHZ0LbxJ9JSIGoTKTRb2DUOp8+JHUGONtYBTM57zEr3iw=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9a94:: with SMTP id w20mr4459440pfi.77.1569160348450; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156903961357.5092.16907354634703727132.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <21D937AA-0B27-4E8D-BB6E-99452F72AC30@cisco.com> <CALx6S35Mehd_LUMt_gL=nr_B29vTND4KfYjjiiPtBaj_JjyWFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wncc3Gtgeb1cWJ-kqDHJVdsf7vR+_BH3tXXjw0ZPR=ZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wncc3Gtgeb1cWJ-kqDHJVdsf7vR+_BH3tXXjw0ZPR=ZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:52:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERkv6dEpCHKMnVrk=u82ZQjm5roBrJY+5qYRUad46-gGkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-07.txt
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a43140593249dce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/O_Z2dJciVj9fpS5_IB5f-rtmx2o>
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:52:32 -0000
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 ? Just FYI all documents describing SRv6+ architecture and CRH also do not swap source address at segment end nodes. Ref draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-07 - Appendix A where src *2001:db8::a* never changes. This model is entirely compliant with RFC 8200, and as tunnels end points > are hosts using RFC 8200's definitions, host EHs such as Destination > Option, or AH and ESP can be used in an RFC 8200 compliant manner. > See the issue you are missing is that even if one would follow strictly to what you are recommending in SRv6 it is still not possible to enable TI-LFA with SR in the domain as you can not just treat each PLR as Segment End node. Of course I guess you can question if TI-LFA with SRv6 is something IPv6 want to support with SR - but as there is some demand I guess more rationale is required then just say "No". And of course using SRH is one way to encode TE topology for TI-LFA. There are other options too, but for now this discussion is about use of SRv6 technology to achieve that. Kind regards, R.
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-voyer… Joel M. Halpern
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6ma… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: wd: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-… SING Team
- RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-voyer… Voyer, Daniel
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man… Tom Herbert
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-voyer… Tom Herbert
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-voyer… Mark Smith
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man… Mark Smith
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man… Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-v… Fernando Gont
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man… Mark Smith