RE: Applicability, Use-cases, and Architecture for the CRH

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Wed, 20 May 2020 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.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 E9D213A0770 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 bgfd7KWNsHFO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 1682F3A076C for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml702-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C179BAF16E77F700569B; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:13:38 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.51) by lhreml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:13:38 +0100
Received: from DGGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.39) by lhreml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:13:38 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.116]) by DGGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::b177:a243:7a69:5ab8%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 20 May 2020 18:12:06 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Applicability, Use-cases, and Architecture for the CRH
Thread-Topic: Applicability, Use-cases, and Architecture for the CRH
Thread-Index: AdYrGbsERWsmzeISTnCP4gDdTqC7Hf//jHGA//jHIMA=
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:12:05 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2A70C@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <DM6PR05MB634898C57C186C0133B2F852AEBA0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <fec4e31b-0c98-7b3b-bbf0-d3225a21bc30@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fec4e31b-0c98-7b3b-bbf0-d3225a21bc30@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.203.229]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/u-LpZc46WbCjU1skJFUaSKKQc6k>
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: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:13:42 -0000

Hi Brian, 

Many thanks for mentioning C-SID. Actually, the concepts of C-SID is really easy to be understood, and it is almost there in the IPv6 address natively due to the address planning.

Also,  this concept of C-SID is described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc-01 as well.

In G-SRv6 for compression[1], a C-SID can be called as Generalized SID(G-SID), and actually, they are the same thing.

Anyway, it is always good to make the concepts clear. 

Will read the documents of CRH ASAP, though it takes times :(

Thanks,
Cheng


[1]. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-01


-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:41 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; 6man@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Applicability, Use-cases, and Architecture for the CRH

Hi Ron,

Looking at your draft plus this extra material, I still think that the concept of a SID is helicoptered in to some extent. It isn't obvious to me that a SID in CRH is semantically the same thing as a SID in the Spring WG. Either it is, in which case you should cite the relevant SID RFC, or it isn't, in which case there is some more writing to do.

I think you could also give an ack to the C-SIDs in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lc-6man-generalized-srh-00

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 16-May-20 12:41, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Darren,
> 
> In previous emails, you suggest that the CRH draft needs information regarding Applicability, Use-cases and Architecture. After the call for adoption, we could add the proposed text, below.
> 
> Would this text address your concerns. If not, please provide specific recommendations.
> 
>                                                                          Ron
> 
>  
> 
> PROPOSED TEXT
> 
> ----------------------
> 
>  
> 
> 9.0 Applicability
> 
>  
> 
> The CRH can be used within any network where:
> 
>   * All nodes implement IPv6.
>   * Edge node can filter inbound packets that contain the CRH.
>   * Selected nodes can process the CRH. If a node is identified in a CRH, and it is not the packet’s ultimate destination, it must be able to process the CRH.
>   * All nodes can maintain a basic FIB that maps IPv6 prefixes to next-hops.
>   * Selected nodes can maintain a CRH-FIB that maps SIDs to IPv6 addresses and forwarding methods. If a node is identified in a CRH, and it is not the packet’s ultimate destination, it must be able to
>   * CRH overhead is acceptable
> 
> CRH-16  overhead is as follows:
> 
>   * 2 SIDs can be stored in a 8-byte CRH
>   * 6 SIDs can be stored in a 16-byte CRH
>   * 10 SIDs can be stored in a 24-byte CRH
>   * 14 SIDs can be stored in a 32-byte CRH
>   * Etc.
> 
> CRH-32  overhead is as follows:
> 
>   * 1 SIDs can be stored in a 8-byte CRH
>   * 3 SIDs can be stored in a 16-byte CRH
>   * 5 SIDs can be stored in a 24-byte CRH
>   * 7 SIDs can be stored in a 32-byte CRH
>   * Etc.
> 
>  
> 
> 10.0 Use-cases
> 
>  
> 
> The CRH can be used to provide traffic steering in:
> 
>  
> 
>   * Data centers
>   * Service provider networks
>   * Enterprise networks
> 
> Each of these networks may have a preferred method for populating the basic FIB and the CRH-FIB. For example, a data center may use a controller to populate both FIBs while a service provider may use an IGP to populate both FIBs.
> 
> The CRH can implemented on:
> 
>   * ASIC-based routers
>   * Software-based routers
>       o Stand-alone
>       o In a container on a server in a data center
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 11.0 Architecture
> 
>  
> 
> CRH architecture determined entirely by RFC 8200. Specifically:
> 
>  
> 
>   * IPv6 source nodes use the CRH to determine nodes that a packet visits on route to is ultimate destination.
>   * The CRH does not subsume the function of any other IPv6 extension header. For example, the CRH cannot be used for authentication, or to deliver optional internet-layer information to the packet’s ultimate destination node.
>   * A packet that contains the CRH can also contain any valid combination of IPv6 extension headers. All extension header should function as per their specifications.
>   * The CRH assumes that IPv6 Destination Address semantics are as defined in RFC 8200 and RFC 4291.
>   * The CRH is processed identically on every node (See Section 5 of this document). Processing rules do not depend upon information encoded in the IPv6 Destination Address.
>   *  
> 
> The CRH conforms to the letter and spirit of RFC 8200. For example:
> 
>   * A packet cannot contain two instances of the CRH
>   * A CRH cannot be added or deleted by any node along a packet’s processing path
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------