IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 20 September 2019 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 5EC011200FF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:21:43 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 zEzoi4hIvUHU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 55EB4120099 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id r5so9573134qtd.0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qpg3ZVtUDLWgV7x8i084gisJ8CCFKlH2KfP2SMPmHSQ=; b=dfvRI43f9vI8d641xcQlPW6tWOkouqoD6VgrJFjLs+dd0UBQnBi7v6e7tmn020uBv4 164NQ/AakL66qWg74zu9xDQGwqNv8p/JPd3hnAUyDTa2d0i5JVv5Elkpy76qXhMQIWZx 1WcniQO/S2NE9eq2Dg3pADSDJICaT3DXf80lpz6pRG2g9uM5SmTYBXArzXy0HxAnlf8q NHGspVM0asNuoNMcJuKBQRY3iqUs0YxT4OspfgfEIPsWbRJTR+sWCtFWSonpaD/GwB9C lIoqlSWMPOy3n3KZ1cjZ2sR48NMWycz6tBREL13+2JHkdWwFkdfgvkpvegXY5lsvzZJK /7Bw==
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=Qpg3ZVtUDLWgV7x8i084gisJ8CCFKlH2KfP2SMPmHSQ=; b=c7agnhVUX3/6RTbBmzBXZVEr2bo70OOItTE9ZrZvN7MvzrgoB4tMW2KXEh0+Zi3+Lm Q/IFjbFng6e2lhCrOVK+YS/DCvgXRcjTMYjKn/eeNAuug1snefALSWBMTupfmYTcvIRe sKEHTA+mdddV/Zn6Tnmnh0uTy26Sj35bkMUromkO+o1UI/VQxu0wYyKgXunhSXRs6Tpv w8vSOz58h0i9kiUaXiXhBFfi2vmwCDzQfu2i1xlGO5yzvznDP6fI57/HIjv74GbTsh6+ 2UsFch6mlS5o8rtQ8VvKnzMkLRwldRe/VzT6inIECBUIxVB1VGRQ2Q7TkCk4B76K8SAP CVDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWAgYfxSU6oiXZyxqXO/ciWKa1rxNqVv6qM1Mz5pbIRQboMwOnv r3HyKcwVscjBjU9ZAnyuNdMS40fvyTaHBeGq9ypUmw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzCPxA+prJlrmfieaGEvBWVR7O4uAfVPpJN1iAF3N4r+KzEw+HFPxhL3NDpTGa4t0UB+Fy6I3B9xa0EgMRtSBo=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f84d:: with SMTP id g13mr13961240qvo.217.1569000100287; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHd-QWtA21+2Sm616Fnw0D-eB7SNb_BeG8-A-MCLLFgTwSpOsg@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB54632F09C712ADB30138CFA9AEBE0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR19MB3415D21403394F8129A4BAD8FCB90@BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <30491F13-C652-45C3-AB2B-95F765FBB4EA@juniper.net> <65C5CB04-3A2F-4F83-A7C8-2045154F93AE@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5463EC3250F2A303A3641839AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <91CBADAD-EFE6-46E1-A9D3-DAA111357179@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMGyUFRPDqCBo5SbLX486o_9GLpM6Zxf8KSt1voWiqhkGQ@mail.gmail.com> <E8D473B5-3E8D-4339-9A79-0CAE30750A55@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMFOy5PyTo=jPJkVrQOctdWjsTbD=7ix-2n89vodKzT3gQ@mail.gmail.com> <2F604D74-51CF-4F2F-AEA9-1CBDEEA9B9F7@gmail.com> <F09C2D09-D769-4817-AF73-97D6ED1BC4BF@lapishills.com> <201909120857387140042@chinatelecom.cn> <1568259664564.62561@bell.ca> <CAO42Z2wQ_8GEE+=nAMFBj+ape9Vf7fARVoOwGdCiUxdffkyXgw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB5463A04B05B4BD6AA294F7F0AEB00@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6EA6F7C0-BEB2-4749-A6AB-62B1337213B2@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5463426F1668202EE5F183EFAE8F0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <634900D2-FBCE-47CF-8907-C8B9CB3A4102@cisco.com> <CALx6S34=Tw-u4Hz-07-Rs-GjsungkqnD_fMoQnGc17u3VJhY1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFqxzqYr7g2jzwJrhvjL_DXYZsDzbzqx01cy0zB1aBweDde1XQ@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB54634112BB290EB29B3DF4FBAE880@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB54634112BB290EB29B3DF4FBAE880@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 19:21:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHwUcpUvoGpiBC1pSC8Npu45gWb0SX8j0oC1uyv=psccQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Cc: Dirk Steinberg <dirk@lapishills.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>, "xiechf@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a16fbe0592ff4d13"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/hX8MqIb2sA5aqwyfl2yBqqLId2o>
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:21:44 -0000

Hi Ron,

No one is questioning that. If packet's destination is not a local address
of a router all options can be ignored.

Fun however starts when destination address in the packet *is* a local
address on the router ie. the router is acting as Segment Endpoint.

Thx,
R.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 7:09 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

> Likewise, SP core routers would ignore the PSSI and wouldn’t even see the
> PPSI.
>
>
>
>                                                       Ron
>

>
>
>
> *From:* Dirk Steinberg <dirk@lapishills.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2019 7:40 PM
> *To:* Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
> *Cc:* Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com>; xiechf@chinatelecom.cn;
> SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6man@ietf.org>; Robert Raszuk <
> robert@raszuk.net>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; Rob Shakir <
> robjs@google.com>; Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding
>
>
>
> SRv6 does not require TLV processing for normal forwarding (use case: SP
> core).
>
>
>
> - Dirk
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email