IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 22 May 2020 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 B30A63A0ACF; Fri, 22 May 2020 07:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 xV5H3irUStKn; Fri, 22 May 2020 07:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (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 7245B3A0AB0; Fri, 22 May 2020 07:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6649E4C; Fri, 22 May 2020 16:23:43 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1590157421; bh=7UZnU82w0tjcZT3YF52 fqejubyYuaj6sJ956ViK6tls=; b=gl+cSy8XCvgLDf7MiDquPaWcUDD3R5aN5kl MhLY5wSpHh+hE0ZwKlKJMN21ea6DOOdO4za2Vs4cPmbP5DvkXj/E/N6ftasBFQqZ JxQWEyEVhZls33DQGn9GTr7AZ7gQRIiircQ1SKkWv77LeL+3OJIig10D+k/17K+k bwfJkNiY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Ur_r4wHQwBgx; Fri, 22 May 2020 16:23:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:f17a:b652:9093:4d1f] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:f17a:b652:9093:4d1f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F16B549; Fri, 22 May 2020 16:23:40 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <AAC1BB04-59E9-4DAC-8B8E-3F12168C5C16@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C987D01A-77C3-468B-9E46-D7BDEC5D52A7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:23:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB63482CFA4D5AB938D5A4B818AEB40@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2CD12@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB63482CFA4D5AB938D5A4B818AEB40@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/u9Uft4JPwkXqabDOZNt200TrRjg>
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: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:23:54 -0000

Hi,

> The sole purpose of a Routing header is to steer a packet along a specified path to its destination. It shouldn’t attempt to do any more than that.
> 
> The CRH does not attempt to deliver service function information to service function instances. However, it is compatible with:
> 
> 	• The Network Service Header (NSH)
> 	• The Destination Options header that precedes the Routing header
> 
> Both of these can be used to deliver service function information to service function instances.

Clear separation of concerns in a SPRING architecture! I was afraid the hope for a clear architecture was lost, but this makes me so happy :)

Cheers,
Sander

And to be 100% clear: I'm not being sarcastic… The messy "architectures" I have seen in the past have driven me to despair. This work is finally something that makes sense.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email