RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 28 May 2020 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.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 A61DB3A0E5B; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, 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=juniper.net header.b=WIhkB9O0; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=Qs64Lmcl
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 KkPQBmQXni7U; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (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 E0A9A3A0E8F; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108157.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04SF8YNE025945; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:11:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=HR5Fw1a30wqhBEbiTWwU9sOArGLZzkeztwmo58k7UhY=; b=WIhkB9O0QR3Zpazf7rr3ZeAJlocvzyKcIH2rRvQP00gqQrhllJvSsuq1CL/aiyp0ZjLS 29jqOkpwKBpqGi7kTITEGQMWYZi6OwxEai6Df/BFAUXehtZK6JKh4tK7yzdMbyykhPWu HonC/s3542BCYh8z0+iLRS3Jmm+hG+pDMXx64fW4aHhgp+F8/0VqThVzJTW/Ezh6tnPk fZMrLfhVDrCmYejj8w/XKkheuCSBKYj4RO3/f1UVIIv7XWWv/IyxlY7EmzciAi0Si+l0 tg3s/o/N2hkpwr8xUaYymBh9yRrtaY7E52xXSxJ4y8270MWkCB2yC1odrpPVn4iKnMXk aA==
Received: from nam11-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam11lp2168.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.56.168]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31aa7p0hce-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 May 2020 08:11:14 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hNaygD2ELtU9y0yP8k024yZWzoBoIDX2HTDcupl7yS1GotGZKBkUMXYET2A/G7U0OOxAp4nxrZkMOGnRDQJ/YXX1osElmQlS+fONaL0d3uySObtjgOGs250xV9hL9WUHUPXqhQ+zlMJQCTENARNXSDBae3eQd6194Z+vjJ4IXT37qbJ0ZoI3frxUrrIXmbUOnz+5kLOdvQuOOuyIWJKSKheyW5pl0fEIU5fzt9DZpSpMYplRS6pOjEyXUHvTFyH2/nsDSDut5WSN5I6bSI5rnFgM8qOrUVbO+OoU44e2YXH/UXo6E22ECxUUyIgkY8INhvOfhJPiUpzDwPUW/g9e4Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HR5Fw1a30wqhBEbiTWwU9sOArGLZzkeztwmo58k7UhY=; b=JzG77sCAcGzjCjs9moDYkTUH87ZVBOlx2xmYUlZpjd3AHx3klR+xOS/xLuj0E+6FUo9khcCjTRpdyaj508Fa2kmHlJ4Y6sZbSjw3dnPUlO24Qfz11CoZXeMRil1bBiPUt1qg7d0l61XUejsZOtQRAR4S9Q6fSTM5+Yd0h1Ih4KoJ4fQAKNJ/LAG+WQpqGFjz9dS9UK2JvvzsdVlNO76kenk3p+HDVkxTzmc6o1d48OGdmFBY1+r0l5r5xc1KWqnDCqG7Yiddv1vJk5tVHUzC47jq/ZcSPIr2EjJYpwS87umY/JJGMCGz25uolOlZaAiH6zrfVqfjabTWRgx5kdVgVw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HR5Fw1a30wqhBEbiTWwU9sOArGLZzkeztwmo58k7UhY=; b=Qs64LmclgwEDEyx1jRGYn2W8nT9Gv1hys+x95cRmYWPQstyXf8+fRs+kg9ZO+9N+HP1VIlRC/9kBfWAtOVanKfSLCw5HLhgbFdaH7D+QysykBW6yx4caKm4Wvo9kNks9U9aLN+g5mdWMyq4n4wAS5pmObbISMaR27SEm5FWPH/s=
Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:122::15) by DM6PR05MB5481.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:5d::27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3066.7; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:11:11 +0000
Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3]) by DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.018; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:11:11 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
CC: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
Thread-Topic: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
Thread-Index: AQHWL4VxmYvkCvDoNEmQ3Xkat3whdqiytyCggAALHOCAAAWDcIAAXREAgABKZfCAAAVCgIAAAypAgAANNoCAAAvxgIAAnLwAgAKNblCAAWx9AIAAV42QgAB2TjCAAw9dsIABn99g
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:11:11 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR05MB6348E2C1D2144B3D1724E141AE8E0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <9CF68CCE-B584-4648-84DA-F2DBEA94622D@cisco.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2C1AE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB6348A22A123AFA7E7345087BAEB70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB457041A967A6BBDA1C7EF0FDC1B70@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <93a31c7f-a102-da59-d9a8-2585cd8e3c65@gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB4570B197EE00C5385DAEE138C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <5F062FA6-9E2D-46BB-A3D6-257D374D8F92@gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB4570485EEDBADEF3B193BB82C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ec63e90e-19fa-cd6c-eacb-4dee44815c99@joelhalpern.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FB2397D4B28A42626802C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3bbb28c8-0106-ad63-abf9-c9dc4e428e0c@joelhalpern.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FD37ED32519C677F5E59C1B20@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB63486B842CD9DF5BE57FC1A5AEB30@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB45706D51FBE6CD63B58CDF15C1B30@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB634848BE997686F212FF9E49AEB30@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB457006B3ECAF2E812CD2E721C18E0@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB457006B3ECAF2E812CD2E721C18E0@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-05-25T03:32:27Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=fce2e8ee-c77f-4352-852c-4509f560098b; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=2
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.4.0.45
dlp-reaction: no-action
authentication-results: dmarc.ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc.ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5aaaf1d2-3e0e-416b-dfcf-08d803195b61
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB5481:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR05MB5481091D75679EAFDB3E3382AE8E0@DM6PR05MB5481.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7691;
x-forefront-prvs: 0417A3FFD2
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 0Nh3fg/0NCoVcfxuTEqUnwbMPcrsnr57NsXNufd56VrMM8ZDwKLBbzmT7EB3HF8QnjwUmOgbdkqYFVkGS7/AMaxRoZpmoTY3qL7nGPfw74/am/kvz0gfnuaRGzUOaP3r1EjPk9qeeMm6uRVnGlUhZRPHZJ0cnm0EEOBYwYASF4lqsUj0hV7ggaUJ4vQ7lnVb19gpF06c+BU1fCf4A13+rRWarUdlypIM0uZQo5KLNx7T0gPxMPAvH85n6mkSXCxHIrrbNRK/+ATPL1dnUma8zbcOPVCYoIBpINq7CNnzAg5uh5+2pAXGBqtq5LIB/vy21n+cN6MjFW7H7L+H3vZGl45pGbdYsfa0qtk6UGIjJjHa6H7QvxPtMUZuMx2sCOEJlYxAggrlxVxv66K3bg5IxA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(366004)(376002)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(52536014)(316002)(478600001)(5660300002)(7696005)(54906003)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(6506007)(166002)(966005)(66476007)(53546011)(2906002)(71200400001)(186003)(33656002)(4326008)(110136005)(86362001)(66946007)(8676002)(9686003)(8936002)(83380400001)(76116006)(26005)(55016002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR05MB6348E2C1D2144B3D1724E141AE8E0DM6PR05MB6348namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5aaaf1d2-3e0e-416b-dfcf-08d803195b61
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 May 2020 15:11:11.4322 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: CRs22CYazIQKtqIVMzjC1WDK+jEKc04Wfj2DqwDQPKkU9me/7uEYQrI3U0Il5dxkTC8VO2dmZIi+xJmvkPm62A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB5481
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-05-28_03:2020-05-28, 2020-05-28 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005280105
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VhYYDkiyhRUxLC5zxo0s__NutXE>
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, 28 May 2020 15:11:31 -0000

Ketan,

Neither of these forwarding methods are unique to SR. In Section 3.1 of RFC 791, you will see that IPv4 had a Strict Source Route Option and a Loose Source Route Option. These predate SR by roughly twenty-five years.

                                                                                 Ron



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:46 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Hi Ron,



Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only supports prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two "forwarding methods".



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22#section-4<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22*section-4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WUUoiYhNiQq44bqITjU9p16KKdON00tbtfOIgQoDmKHLycmNLLtVobJe9BtxN6V1$>


   o  Forward the packet to the next-hop along the least-cost path to >>> Prefix SID
      the next segment endpoint.

   o  Forward the packet through a specified interface to the next >>> Adjacency SID
      segment endpoint.



Given the use of mapping IDs and mapping FIB, the proposal is comparable more to SR-MPLS than SRv6. It is better to do a holistic analysis of any proposal such as CRH that is introducing an MPLS label like mapping construct into IPv6 architecture - doing so should be considered as a significant change to IPv6.



Thanks,

Ketan



-----Original Message-----

From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>

Sent: 25 May 2020 21:14

To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com<mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>

Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>>

Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH



Ketan,



It would not be fair to say that these operators  "wish to deploy a Traffic Engineering solution using a subset of Segment Routing".



It would be fair to say that these operators  "wish to deploy IPv6 Traffic Engineering".  Some of these operators don't care about SR. Some are actively averse to SRv6. All they want is a Routing header.



                                                                 Ron















Juniper Business Use Only



-----Original Message-----

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>

Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 5:21 AM

To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>

Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>>

Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH



[External Email. Be cautious of content]





Hi Ron,



Thanks for that clarification.



I note that you are not anymore saying "Are not interested in SR" like you had mentioned before the WG adoption call : https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$>



So, would it be fair to say that the operator that you are referring to below, wishes to deploy a Traffic Engineering solution using a subset of Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only supports prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two "forwarding methods" that are referred to in draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr?



Thanks,

Ketan



-----Original Message-----

From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>

Sent: 25 May 2020 09:03

To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com<mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>

Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>>

Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH



Ketan,



Please consider an operator who:



- Wants a way to steer IPv6 packets through a specified path that includes many nodes (>8)

- Does not want any of the following:

        - A new VPN encapsulation technique

        - A new service function chaining technique

        - Network programming

        - MPLS and uSID

        - To encoding instructions in IPv6 addresses.



These operators want a compact routing header, nothing more.



                                                                           Ron





Juniper Business Use Only



-----Original Message-----

From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)

Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:42 AM

To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>

Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>>

Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH



[SNIP]



I am looking for explanation of the "other ways" that CRH can be used (i.e. those outside the Spring architecture). I am trying to understand from the authors what would be the applicability of that solution, it's use-cases and it's requirements. That is what, I believe, will help us evaluate the CRH proposal in the context of this working call. That will help us answer these questions like the scope of the SID, 32-bit or 16-bit or something else and what the CRH-FIB is going to turn out like.





[SNIP]

------------------------------------------------------