IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 01 March 2020 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.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 352303A0EDF; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 05:21:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 PTOnn-ov_PhW; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 05:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74E843A0EDB; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 05:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48VkSw2Hklz1nsyW; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 05:21:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1583068912; bh=p76QQQMAY/3X+CF/e0Za7EbK1ovajkFoX9dROUaOznQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=TOJcBvMWYMYAMxPvaZaoXy8C55a9ah7vS/bjL6zDR1T+ShA695U5fRIc6k1OVlbte JP6XNK4f8kNjLIVby+nv8q6IkpvnTvUBM4qmfUGAYHmBlgMl4jQ+UJ74WgGGsT1kck 738476IDVan3vxwg2QB03TuFivsjQX4Gl0Sx3NH0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48VkSv4j3Tz1nsyS; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 05:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <965ff6bbf1cb4c2f8d48b7b535a0cf5b@huawei.com> <CAJE_bqcTNWt==mtYKeNVXOBAzBNLG=+_mXQQ9xMHYOCDRqCb_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMEzbyzy98iFyfe6Z=dQiWHo=triX6bHKx9fNEUCaSuy3Q@mail.gmail.com> <085238CD-14F6-43AE-8D58-49A20DDCBB24@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMGzjP4C4CXi+6i+o_TMO5Un8HdGF+MMGLVa-KPUH+pXZw@mail.gmail.com> <3c07fa08-cd93-d0ae-fc76-ac8c8ae5baa7@gmail.com> <CA+RyBmX0EQydgvgUoPJB+6z6hcAiesVr43MnK_HNua0v8BieVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHBdU=urwhJV6QTn8RZZKZ0kyefHF9TDRbv5cH5CAQ5qg@mail.gmail.com> <c2a0cef9-51b1-ca76-99ad-718a37b06d4f@joelhalpern.com> <CAOj+MMHZ7sVE+pHOEhDPZvP0u-01cD0oTHEo5x=J=PEVj0iTYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <f22282c7-a370-086e-44cf-53fe7dbbc863@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 08:21:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHZ7sVE+pHOEhDPZvP0u-01cD0oTHEo5x=J=PEVj0iTYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mJUMAD5UJo_swl6baX8mW20IXt4>
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, 01 Mar 2020 13:21:54 -0000

While the node is "asserting" that the two are the same, if you use 
different SIDs for OAM compared with data traffic then you are not 
actually checking the same forwarding path.  You are not using the same 
FIB entries.  Sure, if everything works right they are the same.  But 
the whole point of OAM is for when not everything is working right.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/1/2020 8:07 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Nope.
> 
> Node can advertise two SIDs or PSP in a given network may be a well know 
> function (to limit IGP burden) Example: odd SID includes PSP and even 
> SID does not.
> 
> O*A*M  packets can use on the exact same path but the penultimate hop 
> traversal is directed by even SID and is not subject to PSP.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Thx,
> R.
> 
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 5:50 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com 
> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Presuming that by "OEM" you mean "OAM", then no, this does not work.
>     If the OAM is intended to monitor a path that has a last SID whose
>     flavor is PSP, then something will break.  The monitoring will monitor
>     something else, or it won't monitor the last hop, or...
> 
>     Given the point that was made that ignoring a source route (SRH or
>     otherwise) with segments-left = 0 is a mandatory behavior of 8200, I am
>     really left puzzled as to what use case justifies the contortion of PSP.
> 
>     Yours,
>     Joel
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email