RE: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 23 May 2019 08:48 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 4E890120019; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 ImRHkbXBOLqk; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (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 B84E012010F; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4N8mMND017442; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:48:22 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65ECC2203D; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:48:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FA602203C; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:48:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (4.196.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.196.4] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4N8mG59018684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 May 2019 09:48:21 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Rajesh M' <mrajesh=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: 'SPRING WG' <spring@ietf.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <BYAPR05MB48219486CC62D9DAD4F613DEBE570@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB48215C3ED0EC73CEBCBC9DE3BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2yVA77PZDe7JzYQ8Sfqvd_Pxtx8kAtvHWxm6H3kZnkyiw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB4821FA5861785D61A3BD3C76BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB4821C138597D9686DFE10278BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ER=yznuPeRMESW_3CMQDVrXvO13e_a-Yh5QHfuNrpK0PBQ@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB4821AD5C0CEFF91F695BBCB9BE000@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2e4ecdcd-021c-e39b-fd12-7c43c5796e93@pi.nu> <BYAPR05MB4821355CAED735797DEA8AC2BE010@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB4821355CAED735797DEA8AC2BE010@BYAPR05MB4821.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 09:48:17 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <03b501d51144$47022970$d5067c50$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQL4t4SFuDzJl4YP176NcP7JUsS9ngKiie3zAodCkOUCcy5ORQIckf9CAbLIj9EBimxTawFXFfM+AOZHDSKjt3YRwA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.196.4
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24632.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--30.189-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--30.189-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24632.006
X-TMASE-Result: 10--30.189100-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFrxIbpQ8BhdbBlJRfzNw8afIMzO3G1YmxIKQo6lRC5cFeSZ sOHi07gEzmBY4kFVVhaCuBgvxJhxfAcc5KINhrePLjsmuOashGJteYiRfHhOq28QGIjuQRpsqvG dQv+qaij/Hb4RsiDcUd3Oy8924huqN6IarY2VLsWQ1SnerYd+EKccEhvIyMIU6RNIxUAxRZXB5D KuyW8o3yYxz8zvRVby0veZ06lX0f/r41brxy/J3VyuZHgmvm5oUb4EdIZGxuDzlv7FEwWOyyGUb 2JNxi1qoO9cNC/nIh4Uc4KM/CKG3HUVgJ5kwS9qtFK2ZlPEzxEHekfiaX8mR2i2BhDPfjxnr0ug Nj+CPy0oitr6966ULmfv2Fqdhfs1rI78kygLfmy20BbG4zmyXqjZpjC6d+Wfb59dURD98Z6Ox7X 7h9Du64SgY4RJTCeeBiWyh38ZXOHI66CkQ+6WTB7m4tEluvnOVoopVBvm9s2/md2adk3dRCzq5x L3k8a7r+aYbEaikNV7nZmSglxg9mZHQdNW/yn1BBmRlS94ZtuLwnzPZ/AZpwzvg1/q1MH2KUD+t LTtC+E2wRZMiNYfRB5K4X/XHT1cnDY0xTYUoiNrAX6aBzGqZaGnvnr+szpSnxNklYepMzxg21AH DDlGdFWf82btl42yKU2LD8OVDc8ACP4tzqvd3fCW/PNRRp/ZMf5Pdi+0fLb3msKSd1g4xTb7vog Tok4Sb7/fVgKKQVMgjs6vqhuR3QyRU/VfKrewkIHrlGNFjey5I3Jkp5qIPu6c+EZ292GZiMD6wB /IizIZG2woZ2tgp8uT6pyURQPhnE4xp5pGReGeAiCmPx4NwFkMvWAuahr8m5N2YHMD0b8XMJx4A 2kfhwtuKBGekqUpPjKoPgsq7cA=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/reZYe2ajpPgup8puLHG7FyQxfGk>
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, 23 May 2019 08:48:29 -0000
Hi all, I don't think that a loose statement of recommendation is quite enough. Trivially, the IPv6 header must come first and the upper layer header must come last. I think that although the inclusion of the two destination options headers is optional, their positions are quite tightly constrained. Personally, I think this is a good candidate for mandating ordering and probably using RBNF (RFC 5030) to describe the possibilities. Thanks, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rajesh M Sent: 23 May 2019 09:35 To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>; Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com> Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; ipv6@ietf.org; cfilsfil@cisco.com; naikumar@cisco.com Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Yes its just recommended 😊 Juniper Internal -----Original Message----- From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:13 AM To: Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>; Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com> Cc: cpignata@cisco.com; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; cfilsfil@cisco.com; fbrockne@cisco.com; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; rgandhi@cisco.com; naikumar@cisco.com; zali@cisco.com; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Rajesh, It seems to me that "it is recommended" indicate that the ordering is optional/OPTIONAL. Does this document (or your comment) create a MANDATORY ordering of EH's?? /Loa On 2019-05-22 22:44, Rajesh M wrote: > I think as long as we ensure below order it must be OK. > > When more than one extension header is used in the same packet, it is > recommended that those headers appear in the following order: > > IPv6 header > > Hop-by-Hop Options header > > Destination Options header (note 1) > > Routing header > > Fragment header > > Authentication header (note 2) > > Encapsulating Security Payload header (note 2) > > Destination Options header (note 3) > > Upper-Layer header > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:55 PM > *To:* Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net> > *Cc:* cfilsfil@cisco.com; zali@cisco.com; naikumar@cisco.com; > cpignata@cisco.com; rgandhi@cisco.com; fbrockne@cisco.com; SPRING WG > <spring@ietf.org>; Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>; Ron Bonica > <rbonica@juniper.net> > *Subject:* Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 > > Hi Rajesh, > > I think some folks are just confusing "insertion of new EH" from > "modification of existing EH" ? To me those are completely different > actions. > > And processing of any EH is explicitly allowed by RFC8200 as long as > dst address in the top v6 header is the processing entity which seems > to be the case here. Such processing nowhere in RFC8200 seems to be prohibited. > > Let's also observe that as it is often the case with OEM it is actual > network elements who act as both src and dst of the end to end OEM > sessions :). > > Thx, > > R. > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 3:56 PM Rajesh M > <mrajesh=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf..org > <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > Agreed (cannot claim compliance with RFC8200). Authors please > comment > > Guys in this draft I see that all the example such as ping, > traceroute to ipv6 address-> use SRH insertion rather than SRH > encapsulation.This is intentionally done to reduce the packet size > (since underlying data can be only ipv6) ? > > *From:* Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com > <mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:15 AM > *To:* Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net <mailto:mrajesh@juniper.net>> > *Cc:* cfilsfil@cisco.com <mailto:cfilsfil@cisco.com>; zali@cisco.com > <mailto:zali@cisco.com>; naikumar@cisco.com > <mailto:naikumar@cisco.com>; cpignata@cisco.com > <mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>; rgandhi@cisco.com > <mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>; fbrockne@cisco.com > <mailto:fbrockne@cisco.com>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org > <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>; > Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> > *Subject:* Re: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 > > EH insertion is not compliant with RFC8200. Equipment doing so > cannot claim compliance with RFC8200. > > On Wed., 22 May 2019, 11:08 Rajesh M, > <mrajesh=40juniper..net@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > Guys in this draft I see that all the example such as ping, > traceroute to ipv6 address-> use SRH insertion rather than SRH > encapsulation. > > This is intentionally done to reduce the packet size (since > underlying data can be only ipv6) ? > > Juniper Internal > > Juniper Internal > > Juniper Internal > > *From:* Rajesh M > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:06 PM > *To:* cfilsfil@cisco.com <mailto:cfilsfil@cisco.com>; > zali@cisco.com <mailto:zali@cisco.com>; naikumar@cisco.com > <mailto:naikumar@cisco.com>; cpignata@cisco.com > <mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>; rgandhi@cisco.com > <mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>; fbrockne@cisco.com > <mailto:fbrockne@cisco.com> > *Cc:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; > ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>; Ron Bonica > <rbonica@juniper.net <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> > *Subject:* draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 > > Please find few comments on this draft > > 1. Section 3.1.1 , below must be Ref2 > > *Ref1*: Hardware (microcode) just punts the packet. Software > (slow path) > > implements the required OAM > > mechanism. Timestamp is not carried in the packet forwarded to > the > > next hop. > > 2. 4.1.2.2, here it must be N2 (page 10) > > If the target SID is not locally programmed, *N4* responses > with > > the ICMPv6 message (Type: "SRv6 OAM (TBA)", Code: "SID not > > locally implemented (TBA)"); otherwise a success is returned. > > 3. 4.1.2.2, here it must be B:4:C52 (page 11) > > The ICMPv6 process at node N4 > > checks if its local SID (*B:2:C31*) is locally programmed or > not > > and responds to the ICMPv6 Echo Request. > > 4. 4.3.2.2, here it must be B:4:C52 (page 16) > > The traceroute process at > > node N4 checks if its local SID (*B:2:C31*) is locally > > programmed. > > 5) in below two cases is it B5:: or it must be A:5:: ? > > > ping A:5:: via segment-list B:2:C31, B:4:C52 > > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to *B5::,* timeout is 2 seconds: > > !!!!! > > > traceroute A:5:: via segment-list B:2:C31, B:4:C52 > > Tracing the route to *B5::* > > Thanks > > Rajesh > > Juniper Internal > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> > Administrative Requests: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwID-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=ijfTaKShbusYK-FOvFGH9IZ538TctoQw-Pljslc0qGA&m=CWy0ai791mYUvfC3B6IE46DSDAOG-FbuEW2lRdgM_6U&s=2ix9kKHToQUM7NsHhHBM_SSVgBdT3cz6d2L0OrXshSo&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=ijfTaKShbusYK-FOvFGH9IZ538TctoQw-Pljslc0qGA&m=jrfq1dYsfk8_fBqqNNS-gdRsYxNXOt7r52G3GHN0iiQ&s=7EDIKybjxRS2y7WsSXf02B7k15AZOccvbTWWcMu0OYo&e=> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_spring&d=DwID-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=ijfTaKShbusYK-FOvFGH9IZ538TctoQw-Pljslc0qGA&m=CWy0ai791mYUvfC3B6IE46DSDAOG-FbuEW2lRdgM_6U&s=QWz-MtJwmiTTnDkJ2vbryepA7yAALs_X2LVHmyihE7A&e= > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mai > lman_listinfo_spring&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXc > WzoCI&r=ijfTaKShbusYK-FOvFGH9IZ538TctoQw-Pljslc0qGA&m=bA6bNX7XD3BHTzuk > hcoIS-aqZi6dWcnVVdTfYB1goG8&s=fia6hQTqXh09fn6GLOkZIbXdPoNqldBthMQdxAuN > WxM&e=> > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > man_listinfo_spring&d=DwID-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcW > zoCI&r=ijfTaKShbusYK-FOvFGH9IZ538TctoQw-Pljslc0qGA&m=CWy0ai791mYUvfC3B > 6IE46DSDAOG-FbuEW2lRdgM_6U&s=QWz-MtJwmiTTnDkJ2vbryepA7yAALs_X2LVHmyihE > 7A&e= > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Rajesh M
- RE: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Rajesh M
- Re: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Mark Smith
- RE: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Rajesh M
- Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Loa Andersson
- Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Robert Raszuk
- RE: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Rajesh M
- RE: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Loa Andersson
- Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Mark Smith
- RE: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Ron Bonica
- RE: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Tom Herbert
- Re: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00 Zafar Ali (zali)