Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 07 December 2019 11:47 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 1B5E212021C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 03:47:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 NrB3MrkTHgfK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 03:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (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 4F5FB1201EF for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 03:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id y8so928188qvk.6 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 03:47:14 -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=h/8mRijPVRPN2uUYgPA0jDTqogU3n+bWTeUui94yFmw=; b=dcDYMVqlR7mABnGp9wyAXug3XDqk7bt5ZjZ8RPYW7Y4gqiLIgqAaXitgX5d2lSmFFL jb3809Xf+fj/EAAxKNX5FW8xSVwJbfUjujXNuTDlbU48h6M8v4O/+2EpN6SslgnqPw1Z jo+h4WDF2XjBhe/Vn/Go0ASJstaHIUJcHaiVliGv7T3cDl74ttw0PP5eQ61CbYHGSlk6 zID5TWzi1WgD7GM9JdvczP4lHovAeYYlMH3xSDPgjC9RK65E5D2h7vqHmgMCN/E/n/Fb HI+rXTN0Eriqy+quZ5rjWjqzAvoUYLkZ8HgF1jeNznGwaDMkRMtnpmRDC8FqeRm/AntQ GKZg==
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=h/8mRijPVRPN2uUYgPA0jDTqogU3n+bWTeUui94yFmw=; b=US9xUeoPpHsPcv269wSzocdWXnLmVZsb4Vw2rg2Ymr3aJmzncIWMcJzqtWxwa7m6Ln geZ+vISQEgVrhh/no/r8vPk6bw9spFe+W+9YAl1ekmtMujTCnLi9xEyFxHzeHdUG+45W sUwvQtbfFd0cEcCEPtrTF1yqquE03ioEsAmnq2k18y+a8KxRHYRN/G9aRiQUBQmw23YI NmKwqXZEApSp863bAqFhEpV+yq42kUswTHc3yrtyt0Hongr+mqMWvVycA9F7+G5tXxSh gie9kD+QSC0dteg7WRu8wdIZzTEAFAYtAEwqLGm7Jbd67f5iJMZ9PMBmpIJojilq3qQp QlCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX9pzrt+cgoV4PhKuV2oNPvzO1/2xRJb6gtbKaoa0bNzQncYFVC tUxPFv8ZOchjVuaBBhry9jX2cBZn/zUjcGWdTnNRhg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzH+uyqovV4YsU0/rAH/HK+q75U2RJXpfz62D3Oo0hCbGgaVLDxfEcz5HaLsO8CWcdCitmDjiQuFLm71aqPaLg=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8a31:: with SMTP id 46mr17073470qvt.8.1575719233222; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 03:47:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f2a0ad13-0eba-6f5a-1d3c-e45e2780f201@si6networks.com> <D666EA6E-E8E9-439A-9CDE-20857F03CB65@employees.org> <4255AD3B-379C-45BF-96E1-D3D9141A684F@liquidtelecom.com> <d59de54e-c7f8-be67-1e77-b051735d40a6@gmail.com> <3bce7b18-ea45-d29f-5dfb-1d3258b07d1e@si6networks.com> <c6e1f690-b0bf-9f45-8fa7-92ed182c5b04@gmail.com> <a2cc5cbd-ac06-e193-307c-3ffe5b21b0b1@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <a2cc5cbd-ac06-e193-307c-3ffe5b21b0b1@si6networks.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 12:47:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGaSooQbsRzJC2yCrFeHYFvbQgLY=merdwzjBFNXAj17g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000298f1305991bb9da"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mEh3xG2_SbBxc6xDqBx6fXIAx4s>
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: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 11:47:17 -0000
Hey Fernando, (pop when you are the destination but SL!=0 is essentially 'in the > network removal') I was trying to stay out of this but I have one fundamental question or observation this entire debate seems to be about. In the context of SRv6 there are two parallel discussions *Discussion #1* - It is about inserting, modifying or deleting SRH by nodes which are not in the outer IPv6 header of the packet *Discussion #2* - It is about RFC8200 compliance when the node doing insertion of SRH is *the* destination of the packet as read verbatim from the outer IPv6 header. *Discussion #3* - It is about RFC8200 compliance when the node doing modification or removal of SRH is *the* destination of the packet as read verbatim from the outer IPv6 header. First let's observe that RFC8200 is only defining the behaviour regarding EH processing in the context of destination address of the IPv6 outer header: "identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. " Therefore stating that SL value before local decrement matters in this in respect to being compliant to the IPv6 RFC is at best just an individual interpretation. Besides the pseudocode says it black and white "S14.1. If (updated SL == 0) {". We do all sort of processing decision after decrementing the values ... think TTL :) So back to reality ... *Discussion #1* - I think we all agree that to accomplish that RFC8200 would need to be updated. *Discussion #2* - I think we also all agree here that to accomplish this RFC8200 would need to be updated as it does says clearly that "Each extension header should occur at most once, ..." *Discussion #3* - It seems clearly that there is no issue with compliance with RFC8200 and that if penultimate segment midpoint decides or is instructed to pop SRH it sure can and still be 100% compliant with current wording of RFC8200. So other then so much foam what is this debate all about ? Cheers, Robert.
- Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping Ron Bonica
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Fernando Gont
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Ron Bonica
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Fernando Gont
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… otroan
- RE: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Ron Bonica
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… otroan
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Fernando Gont
- We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: … Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Tom Herbert
- RE: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Ron Bonica
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Enno Rey
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Enno Rey
- RE: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Ron Bonica
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Bob Hinden
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Sander Steffann
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Bob Hinden
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Tom Herbert
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Andrew Alston
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… otroan
- RE: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… otroan
- RE: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Ron Bonica
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Fernando Gont
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- RE: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Ole Troan
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Sander Steffann
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Tom Herbert
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Tom Herbert
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Ole Troan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Fernando Gont
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Separating issues (was Re: [spring] We don't seem… Suresh Krishnan
- RE: Separating issues (was Re: [spring] We don't … Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Mark Smith
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… otroan
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Fernando Gont
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Tom Herbert
- Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Pop… Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] Network Programming - Penultimate Se… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Mark Smith
- IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Fernando Gont
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Sander Steffann
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Gyan Mishra
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Gyan Mishra
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Tom Herbert
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Gyan Mishra
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Gyan Mishra
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Sander Steffann
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Warren Kumari
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Gyan Mishra
- RE: We don't seem to be following our processes (… Ron Bonica
- RE: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Ron Bonica
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Sander Steffann
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Gyan Mishra
- RE: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Ron Bonica
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain otroan
- RE: [spring] We don't seem to be following our pr… bruno.decraene
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Fernando Gont
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Tom Herbert
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Gyan Mishra
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Fernando Gont
- RE: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Ron Bonica
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Gyan Mishra
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Fernando Gont
- Re: topics to circulate Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: topics to circulate Gyan Mishra
- Re: topics to circulate Erik Kline
- Re: topics to circulate Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: topics to circulate Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain Alexandre Petrescu