Re: [spring] About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Mon, 15 June 2020 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB943A0E6F; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 AoIQqSIiZEUA; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:10:40 -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 880E43A0E72; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E57DA9303BEF81C4DC24; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:10:24 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.160) by lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:10:24 +0100
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 23:10:21 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 23:10:21 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
Thread-Index: AdZCuMJHBVRRTak/QdaJrs+4Mzv0gAAAwI2AABg6IbAAAmS5gA==
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:10:21 +0000
Message-ID: <07be633a867a4db2b8a47477bb5f84cf@huawei.com>
References: <000001d642ba$b89f3480$29dd9d80$@chinatelecom.cn> <f677afa195154a97bd66e5c9688b8734@huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB634845D0CC14CB3D7A705D94AE9C0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB634845D0CC14CB3D7A705D94AE9C0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.209.178]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07be633a867a4db2b8a47477bb5f84cfhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/0iEhAHrvKnFDDAxVcefVyJ6wyfg>
Subject: Re: [spring] About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:10:44 -0000

Hi Ron,
Agreed ICMP is an upper-layer header that should be consistent with the SRv6-OAM draft [1], and I guess you may have also noticed the same.
Please see the proposed text I have just posted.

Regards,
Jingrong

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-05


From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 9:54 PM
To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>; ipv6@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)

Aijun, Jingrong,

Could the upper-layer header also be ICMP, as in a ICMP Echo message?

                                                    Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:29 PM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>>; ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Aijun,
Very good catch!
I think the 4.3.1.2 need to be updated !
I would like to propose some text (maybe later today) for RFC8754 4.3.1.2, as well as some other text in SRv6-PGM section 4.1 (and some related sections) I have observed  about the Upper-layer processing for further discussion.

Thanks
Jingrong


From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 10:14 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)

Hi, Folks:
RFC8754(SRH) section 4.3.1.2(https://tools..ietf.org/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1.2<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8754*section-4.3.1.2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TQj3lWlbJi1xnhmD0skSC1Qbp_vkkYT77iE2zA_6hLItZqr8eZxbW1IoKhFgaBkD$>) describes the process of upper layer header as the followings:
IF (Upper-layer Header is IPv4 or IPv6) and
       local configuration permits {
     Perform IPv6 decapsulation
     Resubmit the decapsulated packet to the IPv4 or IPv6 module
   }
   ELSE {
   ......
}
And in network programming draft section 9.1(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15#section-9.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15*section-9.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TQj3lWlbJi1xnhmD0skSC1Qbp_vkkYT77iE2zA_6hLItZqr8eZxbW1IoKiVOq5HR$>), one new Ethernet Next Header Type(143) is proposed.

Although the detail process of this new next header are described in the network program draft,  does it need to update the section 4.3.1.2 of RFC8754 to reflect the process of new header type(143)?

Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom