Re: [spring] [nvo3] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 23 May 2016 07:29 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 68FA712D0BF; Mon, 23 May 2016 00:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.198, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 lRGNprOEz4-z; Mon, 23 May 2016 00:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (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 A242812D099; Mon, 23 May 2016 00:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e131so20829956lfb.0; Mon, 23 May 2016 00:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=s4B5Rh9/mUUCqsmhxguw5triCijipJL/6g/nmkbOSBc=; b=ZN6s+Tet48hSnWaXaTnUIB6FU07OvforVhgr3veAul1fBMfMhTiVRwYnn7MAJBOj1q y3I2WxNsimz25cu5/ZTkrcfahFL816dV08bnou6kLwJhjMfBgyHuhuUseL2UOVOwR7LS QahDj2968LWifUmOureL3DOkuVC7kfwAyPMfTi0FthPaf7yTor0gvvgsfswQfdkU1KP8 ArzWssA0xg8a8Iv2HHbC7Um24Hj9/dKiwa5FXqpPf/XLOPCISAPMrJIFay5mvfZinR/L dPkgt4XLHIlX5xUGzXuJ83Gyk7zevYY1lwPvNoL2gMV76Tqe8F35TrKbKPwzVyQHo6VO Avfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=s4B5Rh9/mUUCqsmhxguw5triCijipJL/6g/nmkbOSBc=; b=cmjR3jZQf7biexQpzd3tqp8r8Ansdz1ZwOw+dC8OzY93w6lM6LX+C464y+gOuMaMKI XAmkwMzVJr4amUq6H2kztzxEsirfYAwy4z7tEhv1qqN9P3dROJy6NJfAV/vWoYB8yA7U 5G1Nmn3UdS1/+rbWwCB1FkqgpZzb2oqmGitAJ7PXkMt6VgiZpwcbyelbxGLY6nl/XPNm wHk91CQSPYpT8Xguow3+YGueFPF6fF/o4ei2lKJv+XLwTXh2Wym5JvQKtNPno75q7eAh zR52V+VR5+1EKEwDhQ05HvgsKUdg78YfsW9asXzOP54VaFwnKteaUk2ygoA3Dn4fMw8N lUAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVRzu0qoBCnZ2na0R3sEIF3j2eQW4VP0Eg40+NcfVIs6LliwSwXRHRcZ+JWmcIzoAhpD94jdH4QXO2vew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.21.156 with SMTP id 28mr4948594lfv.124.1463988545643; Mon, 23 May 2016 00:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.25.126.210 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 00:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <569a4067fd1f45dd85d60e983be69b90@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com>
References: <eaf5cad817624c7a8758758aa058399b@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com> <AD825FC8-E5AB-437D-992B-F5900B67EFA7@employees.org> <ECB16B90-392C-4C98-B3EA-86050AE2BEBA@cisco.com> <5dc56935eba94c2390120244564f9b21@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com> <A5EFDE4C-BE25-4F5C-B176-E63740E94F4B@cisco.com> <ed76a19f5995465e8f4eddcba5d0c95c@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com> <0551686F-F1D2-4C34-81C8-530F1BEE1BDF@cisco.com> <5d889e7013b44b27ae1e75cf7ea2dd22@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com> <CALx6S35iChUWbF_Qp6Sf2s5ipPDqkNfVB1k0i=45Nq5q4OnS_w@mail.gmail.com> <3549ABBE-9828-42D2-A056-851432487E2E@cisco.com> <1e13d2e32b2448af94bf23d5acf17740@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com> <569a4067fd1f45dd85d60e983be69b90@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 09:29:05 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Gwlpm2S0do1YjcmM6l2AwkMR__E
Message-ID: <CA+b+ER=zQbceetmYE-ehVczCVTcx0tawEZb1bdRB9ZktdfW7ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] [nvo3] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140677637ee3c05337d65c8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/bBNLy5vqZmSuPLiHGkffLv0hxgA>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe@tools.ietf.org>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve@tools.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, 23 May 2016 07:29:11 -0000
Hi Tal, > drafts seem to imply Where say in draft draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe do you see such statement that would imply that v6 NxtHdr must be only equal to 17 (UDP) and not be a pointer to any other type of extension header further followed by UDP ? Thx, R. On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> wrote: > Dear Authors of VXLAN-GPE / Geneve, > > I am reiterating on this question, as I haven't seen a response yet: > > Have you considered the use of Segment Routing with VXLAN-GPE / Geneve? > The current VXLAN-GPE / Geneve drafts seem to imply that IPv6 extension > headers are currently not supported. > > Thanks, > Tal. > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tal Mizrahi > >Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:09 PM > >To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Tom Herbert; draft-ietf-nvo3- > >geneve@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe@tools.ietf.org > >Cc: spring@ietf.org; nvo3@ietf.org; 6man WG; draft-ietf-6man-segment- > >routing-header@tools.ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment- > >routing-header > > > >Stefano, > > > >If I understand your point correctly: > >IPv6 segment routing does not work with VXLAN / VXLAN-GPE / Geneve, since > >these encapsulations do not currently allow the use of IPv6 extension > >headers. > > > >I wonder if the authors of VXLAN-GPE and Geneve have considered the use of > >segment routing. > > > >Thanks, > >Tal. > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:41 AM > >>To: Tom Herbert > >>Cc: Tal Mizrahi; 6man WG; spring@ietf.org; > >>draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- header@tools.ietf.org > >>Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- > >>header > >> > >> > >>> On May 16, 2016, at 7:10 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > >wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> > >>wrote: > >>>>> it’s all about IP, not layer-2. > >>>>> > >>>>> s. > >>>> > >>>> Right. However, it appears that at least in some cases a VXLAN VTEP > >>>> will > >>use SR. It certainly may be the case in SFC use cases (see Section 2.3 > >>in draft- ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases). > >>>> > >>> > >>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header mentions that the packet is > >>> encapsulated > >> > >> > >>into an outer ipv6 header which makes it a layer-3 encap. > >> > >> > >>> , but I don't think it is explicit as to exact encapsulation format > >>> (I suppose simple ip6ip6 is implied). > >> > >> > >>see section 2.2 > >> > >> > >>> But, it > >>> seems like any of several encapsulation techniques could work (VXLAN, > >> > >> > >>I have some problems to understand where to fit an extension header > >>into a vxlan encap… > >> > >> > >>> GRE/IP, ESP/IP, GUE, foo over UDP, etc.) and if a device that wants > >>> to do SR is already doing tunneling it seems reasonable to me to only > >>> have one layer of encapsulation. Maybe this should be clarified in > >>> the draft? > >> > >> > >>the draft is about IPv6 extension header and more precisely a new type > >>of the routing extension header defined in rfc2460. That’s the context. > >> > >> > >>s. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Tom > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] > >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:24 PM > >>>>> To: Tal Mizrahi > >>>>> Cc: Ole Trøan; > >>>>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@tools.ietf.org; > >>>>> spring@ietf.org; 6man WG > >>>>> Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and > >>>>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- header > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On May 16, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Stefano, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks again for the prompt response. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. the SRH is originated by the ingress node of the SR domain. > >>>>>>> This is done by encapsulating the packet into a outer > >>>>>>> (additional) ipv6 header followed by an SRH. This is L3 > >>>>>>> encapsulation and no L4 checksum is involved. When the packet > >>>>>>> leaves the SR tunnel the outer encapsulation (including the SRH) > >>>>>>> is removed and the packet continues its journey like nothing > >happened. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So VXLAN is off the table? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> it’s all about IP, not layer-2. > >>>>> > >>>>> s. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> It would be worthwhile to clarify this in the draft. If you have a > >>>>>> specific > >>>>> encapsulation in mind, it would be great if the draft would specify > it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Tal. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] > >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:13 PM > >>>>>>> To: Tal Mizrahi > >>>>>>> Cc: Ole Trøan; > >>>>>>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@tools.ietf.org; > >>>>>>> spring@ietf.org; 6man WG > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and > >>>>>>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- header > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On May 16, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> > >>wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Stefano, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the responses. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> exactly. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moreover, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header assumes > >>>>>>>>> encapsulation so clearly there’s no L4 involved here. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> s. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Two questions: > >>>>>>>> 1. What if the encapsulation is VXLAN? L4 would still be > >>>>>>>> involved, > >>right? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> See below. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2. When you say 'assumes encapsulation', does it mean that a > >>>>>>>> host cannot > >>>>>>> send an IPv6 packet with an SRH? The current draft says: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A Source SR Node can be any node originating an IPv6 packet with > >>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>> IPv6 and Segment Routing Headers. This include either: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A host originating an IPv6 packet. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> An SR domain ingress router encapsulating a received IPv6 > packet > >>>>>>>> into an outer IPv6 header followed by an SRH. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Will appreciate if you can clarify that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ok, two cases: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. the SRH is inserted at the source. > >>>>>>> the source originates the packet, the ipv6 header and the SRH. > >>>>>>> The source computes L4 checksum taking into account the whole > >>IPv6+SRH. > >>>>>>> Here, theres’ nothing new compared to rfc2460. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. the SRH is originated by the ingress node of the SR domain. > >>>>>>> This is done by encapsulating the packet into a outer > >>>>>>> (additional) ipv6 header followed by an SRH. This is L3 > >>>>>>> encapsulation and no L4 checksum is involved. When the packet > >>>>>>> leaves the SR tunnel the outer encapsulation (including the SRH) > >>>>>>> is removed and the packet continues its journey like nothing > >happened. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> s. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Tal. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:59 AM > >>>>>>>>> To: Ole Trøan; Tal Mizrahi > >>>>>>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@tools.ietf.org; > >>>>>>>>> spring@ietf.org; 6man WG > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and > >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- header > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2016, at 8:06 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Tal, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [Apologies if this issue has been discussed before.] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> According to draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, an ‘SR > >>>>>>>>>>> Segment > >>>>>>>>> Endpoint Node’ updates the Destination IP address. > >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it must also update the Layer 4 Checksum, right? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if there is an upper bound on the size of the SRH. > >>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, the > >>>>>>>>> L4 Checksum may be located in a pretty deep location. > >>>>>>>>>>> Speaking from a chip vendor’s perspective this may be a > problem. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> From RFC2460, RH0: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> o If the IPv6 packet contains a Routing header, the > Destination > >>>>>>>>>> Address used in the pseudo-header is that of the final > >>>>>>>>>> destination. At the originating node, that address will > be in > >>>>>>>>>> the last element of the Routing header; at the > recipient(s), > >>>>>>>>>> that address will be in the Destination Address field of > the > >>>>>>>>>> IPv6 header. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I would expect SR would work the same. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> exactly. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moreover, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header assumes > >>>>>>>>> encapsulation so clearly there’s no L4 involved here. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> s. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>> Ole > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative > >>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >_______________________________________________ > >nvo3 mailing list > >nvo3@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
- L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-h… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… otroan
- RE: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- RE: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- RE: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- RE: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- RE: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Tal Mizrahi
- RE: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Mark Smith
- Re: L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routi… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segm… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routi… Mark Smith
- Re: L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routi… Tom Herbert
- RE: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [spring] [nvo3] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Robert Raszuk
- RE: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Robert Raszuk
- RE: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Jesse Gross
- Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- RE: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6m… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)