Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 27 February 2020 19:11 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 90A603A094A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:11:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 ea7267M-r5mh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:11:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (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 C610E3A0945 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 2so326122oiz.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:11:15 -0800 (PST)
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=n5wUY7BTkhLbnIFdUuj9tf0oasB0DrvmM4cItCh3s3o=; b=MSoOfmM2tL25kySmZ416K12j8CjwQROJL0lRiB/3qo422n+7B7dEh/BHdQlJ9c09Go v9Q3EbbtJloChkuaLL84iVqqv9NNJGGmCNH+KaKk7jMguFxkMR0Vv2ILBoX/Ae8CccU1 wNxKz0mIbsKwK8KqBXecbUSfPj2Jwjro795moo6o+6xQ6D1ivt3e2kEVpzbtXpwOmIA3 V4MJgwTyAXtwR7n0jpk1gV66a5KjesIzQlFqhYBlWbVbP6Yzx6SV8pG4lbsJ03B/Nab0 IAC2UuwormEu+I8XgXiR8cSbJGLiSvd5TiYbY9e2Z2G4TghOLlO5xj1hQt07u0nt3lPu Ewxw==
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=n5wUY7BTkhLbnIFdUuj9tf0oasB0DrvmM4cItCh3s3o=; b=aklZANo8KGKMj4yDumFoDnZSZXngd0vdMNpg5+Gud7n2trKY8o19JquLPE/dBEmQ5f +zaVQGDudGCeSYCcShqxZ2M3FB/u16EUvLStvgQyyVayTcCxzSOrtMCQFaSYOVahnB/F ua8cTf3wosM016AqlOQqFM14e8qVRv0jDf8rRsxdQ6DkgkPomKq+Alh5MRBex2jTKyAC Spbl99S6xO7j2qFMleK5rKBwUPL4C0c13twqExPj0z4HCaVomBjOmZz8pEhpNPyV9HU2 dIbx28oRZaQcjmHztU4dRc25lERphOZqGDOGpFEOL1caVLcShek4EIs6jQhu5DpGLQfj oi6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX87qnOYMttNDLGGwtRF9zvXNlIxae1qaeolkj7Rhq/ysGfG4AD NCVkC0/sIhudhBNxcieCSRHXf/kyR9k9b3cjAdGGKg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqypLsf0mmMda6S9IYD7OM1U/rJpCi5Z88fuurqODqb84VKLDP+uUd+MBzVkJDzAE/szN5rO4in7FVHQJ5XBA+M=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4510:: with SMTP id l16mr425459oil.70.1582830674678; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:11:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158248836511.1031.1350509839394231473@ietfa.amsl.com> <7481061F-75A5-4E4D-80AE-40E1F933E94A@cisco.com> <1BB7ED35-98EC-4A73-92A3-AD043D462CF7@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2zOr_8Ptukf_WE8hWOUUH1vXFig-=fNWhNeweruibQDhw@mail.gmail.com> <DBBPR03MB541525FF72B82416A020B632EEEC0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB63489BE3D1C669C277D64906AEEC0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BEE51E09-0929-4F48-B5B3-6BAB23E07DAB@cisco.com> <CABNhwV3q4MAopb0oXSw4uHezfVLjMnvf8h4BzFY_q8LS7dCXVw@mail.gmail.com> <97141983-EDF7-4C1E-A8F1-4ADCD345BC5A@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB634859429BEBC90FFA687936AEEB0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB634859429BEBC90FFA687936AEEB0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:11:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHhbguEjviPHgu8W_C-xAv_ptR3chZv+9CfA9arZr01ww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "xiejingrong@huawei.com" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>, "daniel.voyer@bell.ca" <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001aa653059f937c74"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/l2A7ATvW_Xje0VZFKudIM4nt71A>
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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:11:19 -0000

Ron,

How about we go the other way and really admit that some hardware just can
not PSP at line rate ?

But for that there is very simple solution - you advertise PSP depth of
zero in IGP extensions and you are done.

Both ISIS and OSPFv3 extensions support this already today.

And as it has been said and illustrated it does not stretch RFC8200 at all.
PSP is performed by node listed in DA of the arriving packet. Such node can
do whatever it want with the outer header of the packet. Some folks try to
punch holes in 8200 to cover their issues - is that in good spirit of IETF
?

Your idea of taking piece of the consistent spec away is very broken as it
now makes other documents inconsistent and blocks hardware where such
function is supported today at line rate.

Let the operator choose if he wants PSP or not and move on ...

Best,
R.








On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:39 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Pablo,
>
>
>
> The question at hand is whether PSP is so crucial to SRv6 that it is worth
> stretching the limits of RFC 8200 compliance. The emails that you site
> below say that it is for the following reasons:
>
>
>
>    1. Because PSP is already deployed
>    2. Because PSP unburdens the ultimate segment router from the task of
>    processing and removing the SRH
>    3. Because PSP enables incremental deployment
>
>
>
> The first argument can be dismissed out of hand. Just because something
> has been deployed doesn’t mean that it adds value or even that it causes no
> harm.
>
>
>
> The second argument is dubious. Given that the ultimate segment endpoint
> has to remove the outer IPv6 header and forward the packet, the additional
> cost of checking the Segments Left field and removing the SRH is minimal.
>
>
>
> The third argument was best articulated Dan Voyer in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ErcErN39RIlzkL5SKNVAeEWpnAI/
> and deserves some consideration. In his deployment scenario, the ultimate
> segment endpoint:
>
>
>
>    - Can process a SID, received as an IPv6 DA, on the fast path
>    - Cannot process an SRH, even if Segments Left equal 0, on the fast
>    path.
>
>
>
> In this scenario, PSP keeps packets off of that device’s slow path.
>
>
>
> While I have sympathy for Dan’s dilemma, I wonder whether it is a good
> idea to stretch the IPv6 standard to accommodate IPv6-challenged devices.
>
>
>
> Maybe a compromise is possible? Would it be possible to move discussion of
> the PSP out of the Network programming draft and into a separate draft that
> a) describes the use-case in which it is required and b) discourages its
> use in all other cases.
>
>
>
>
>               Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Pablo Camarillo
> (pcamaril)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:17 AM
> *To:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
>
>
>
> Gyan,
>
>
>
> As I (and other WG members) have explained in the past, PSP is not trying
> to provide any feature parity with MPLS.
>
>
>
> It enables new use-cases that have been provided by other members in the
> list. [1], [2] and [5].
>
> From operational perspective it is not complex as explained in [3].
>
> There is substantial benefit. Four operators have deployed PSP, which
> proves the benefit.
>
> And additionally operators have expressed their value in [4] and [5].
>
>
>
> [1].-
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/wTLJQkzC6xwSNPbhB84VH0mLXx0
>
> [2].-
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/V0ZpjVLSVZxHaBwecXFxqJjlg_c
>
> [3].-
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ssobwemrPz0uEZjvRCZP1e4l_l0
>
> [4].-
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/KXCBHT8Tpy17S5BsJXLBS35yZbk
>
> [5].-
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ErcErN39RIlzkL5SKNVAeEWpnAI
>
>
>
> I don't see the point of starting a new thread from zero that discusses
> the same thing.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> *From: *Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 00:35
> *To: *"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
>
>
>
>
>
> PSP has historical context from PHP ( Penultimate Hop POP) in the MPLS
> world.
>
>
>
> 20+ years ago when MPLS we originally developed the concept of PHP
> implicit null reserved label value 0 was done to offload the burden of the
> egress PE FEC destination to pop the entire label stack before forwarding
> the native IP packet to the CE.
>
>
>
> Hardware these days for the last 15 years or so are so advanced that the
> idea that you are saving processing on the egress PE has not existed for a
> long time.
>
>
>
> Even  back then in both SP and enterprise space there were issues that
> arise related to PHB QOS egress queuing,  that occurs on the PHP node that
> had the MPLS shim popped, it cannot schedule on the topmost label via exp
> provider markings done on the ingress PE upon label imposition.
>
>
>
> A workaround to this issue was to set explicit null label value 0 and use
> pipe or uniform mode to tunnel the customer payload to the egress PE FEC
> destination called UHP ultimate hop node with topmost label intact.
>
>
>
> The concept of implicit null PHP concept did not bode well in the MPLS
> world so I don’t see why that feature parity would be added to a next gen
> protocol that would be the future MPLS replacement.
>
>
>
> I agree with taking some of the good features and knobs from MPLS, but why
> take the ones like implicit null with is really an archaic feature.
>
>
>
> My 2 cents
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:38 PM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcamaril=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> This is the 5th time that we have this discussion in the past five months.
>
>
>
> I consider those three questions as closed based on the previous
> discussion.
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/yRkDJlXd71k0VUqagM3D77vYcFI/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/yRkDJlXd71k0VUqagM3D77vYcFI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TEtwPySm6G-5vGGZ1n_7cdy_CuLlKozmPjpyK5rOohk2yw1JV1unB51aYs9oOW3B$>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> *From: *Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Monday, 24 February 2020 at 16:27
> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>om>, Mark Smith <
> markzzzsmith@gmail.com>gt;, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
> *Cc: *SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>, "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <
> pcamaril@cisco.com>
> *Subject: *RE: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> We may need to ask the following questions:
>
>
>
> 1)      Does PSP violate letter of RFC 8200?
>
> 2)      Does PSP violate the spirit of RFC 8200?
>
> 3)      Is PSP a good idea?
>
>
>
> The 6man WG, and not SPRING, should answer the first two questions. So I
> will avoid them an explore the third.
>
>
>
> At first glance, PSP adds no value. Once Segments Left has been
> decremented to 0, the Routing header becomes a NOOP. So why bother to
> remove it? I see the following arguments:
>
>
>
> 1)      To save bandwidth between the penultimate and ultimate segment
> endpoints.
>
> 2)      To unburden the ultimate segment endpoint from the task of
> processing the SRH
>
> 3)      To unburden the ultimate segment endpoint from the task of
> removing the SRH
>
>
>
> The first argument is weak. Routing headers should not be so large that
> the bandwidth they consume is an issue.
>
>
>
> The second argument is also weak. Once the ultimate segment endpoint has
> examined the Segments Left field, it can ignore the SRH. The ultimate
> segment endpoint must be SRv6-aware, because it must process the SID in the
> IPv6 destination address field. Given that the ultimate segment endpoint is
> SRv6 aware, it should be able to process the SRH on the fast path.
>
>
>
> The third argument is even weaker. The ultimate segment endpoint:
>
> -          Has to remove the IPv6 tunnel header, anyway
>
> -          Being closer to the edge, may be less heavily loaded than the
> penultimate segment endpoint.
>
>
>
> Can anyone articulate a better justification for PSP? If not, why test the
> limits of RFC 8200 over it?
>
>
>
>
>                                          Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Alston
> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 5:06 AM
> *To:* Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>om>; Sander Steffann <
> sander@steffann.nl>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcamaril=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
>
>
>
> I agree with the sentiments expressed below
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Mark Smith
> *Sent:* Monday, 24 February 2020 00:50
> *To:* Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <
> pcamaril=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, 07:47 Sander Steffann, <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > We have published a new update to
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. This revision simplifies the
> counters as per [1], clarifies the upper layer header processing as per [2]
> and removes the reference to the OAM draft [3].
>
> I still oppose the segment popping flavours in section 4.16 without
> updating RFC8200.
>
>
>
> I would expect that defying Internet Standard 86/RFC8200 means this ID
> needs to have Experimental rather than Standards Track status.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Tfl9m_at6pZSp38lOtxE5WZLnsW_ojrgXUvQ_Rx-tN4MY7qa-MtwIQWgGCTduGJT$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TEtwPySm6G-5vGGZ1n_7cdy_CuLlKozmPjpyK5rOohk2yw1JV1unB51aYkKy0jPv$>
>
> --
>
> Gyan  Mishra
>
> Network Engineering & Technology
>
> Verizon
>
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>
> Phone: 301 502-1347
>
> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>