Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com> Tue, 07 May 2019 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <pcamaril@cisco.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 E5401120072; Tue, 7 May 2019 00:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=YER2qm3p; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=ZMr/DcOB
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 kBDxKsqFFadw; Tue, 7 May 2019 00:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D611200CC; Tue, 7 May 2019 00:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3018; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557212932; x=1558422532; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Hct/tz9iSvxINQHW16c6+O3b2Iy7r0fVyX0xE8fsOrM=; b=YER2qm3pxPnSgxCmCstpXLEk8KgKGZ/eBzhGXFqZ5TIW1SALLeLaf7iU ePYp2BUjD0gpz0Ow13L9ul5UIU0L2w0dN4iAwrzD6eKbzND8w+9ThXvL7 yaogrhYSAjr0dmP4L1im934Vqmu6TcAUtzT8ztbclmq7sxIo/ihX/6UIJ c=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:d1hRXxSDGxmbROH9gy42QMYHKdpsv++ubAcI9poqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESXBNfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH15g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOjQxFcFLTl5h13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BIAACQLtFc/51dJa1ZChwBAQEEAQEHBAEBgVEHAQELAYE9UANpVSAECygKhAaDRwOEUooxSoFoJZckgS6BJANUDgEBGAsKhEACF4F/IzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQJtHAyFSgEBAQQBARAREQwBASwMCwQCAQgRAwECAwImAgICJQsVCAgBAQQBEiKDAAGBagMdAQIMon4CgTWIX3GBL4J5AQEFhQgYgg4DBoELJwGLTReBQD+BOAwTgkw+gmEBAQKBNIM1MoImix6COplpCQKCCZJKG5VRjB+UdAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBTziBVnAVOyoBgkGCDwwXg0yFFIU/cgGBKI96AYEgAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,441,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="336630138"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 07 May 2019 07:08:51 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4778pI3009571 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 May 2019 07:08:51 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 7 May 2019 02:08:50 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 7 May 2019 03:08:49 -0400
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 7 May 2019 02:08:49 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Hct/tz9iSvxINQHW16c6+O3b2Iy7r0fVyX0xE8fsOrM=; b=ZMr/DcOBKN+D+uV4tKdlHPIxQTmXYOffvuzfNLic2geuZs1a5H7Bl5fp6JbbYnRYcVe6rikVtdLOqx+iAM7gSSRtAfT0GE2JW1pmvzZtyVzyZSaenVVRC1dGAigkS+iltRp/oPioF8PTQ/dhjxPKy9Abt278/U++PR13WKxl/z4=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3687.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.237.160) by BYAPR11MB2647.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.227.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1856.11; Tue, 7 May 2019 07:08:48 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB3687.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8120:9a3d:fbf8:9c6d]) by BYAPR11MB3687.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8120:9a3d:fbf8:9c6d%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1856.012; Tue, 7 May 2019 07:08:48 +0000
From: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
Thread-Index: AdUDo1cr1ntuHPleQoe8AvXX2JxkXgAgU5gA
Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 07:08:48 +0000
Message-ID: <AA81898A-9E6C-4AD5-9629-4BA283378A79@cisco.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB4245988C3A47C3665BD91172AE300@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB4245988C3A47C3665BD91172AE300@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.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_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Owner=rbonica@juniper.net; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2019-05-06T00:47:22.1556699Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=Juniper Internal; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Extended_MSFT_Method=Automatic; Sensitivity=Juniper Internal
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pcamaril@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.56]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 388abea9-346a-4ac5-5079-08d6d2bada00
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB2647;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2647:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB26478F0BA50E20A9F71479BBC9310@BYAPR11MB2647.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0030839EEE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(14454004)(25786009)(26005)(86362001)(110136005)(5660300002)(256004)(33656002)(8936002)(6246003)(6486002)(186003)(229853002)(486006)(6436002)(6306002)(8676002)(6512007)(81156014)(81166006)(76176011)(6506007)(53546011)(53936002)(102836004)(478600001)(3846002)(6116002)(2906002)(99286004)(11346002)(446003)(66574012)(71190400001)(68736007)(83716004)(71200400001)(316002)(91956017)(305945005)(66556008)(76116006)(64756008)(66476007)(66446008)(7736002)(73956011)(2616005)(66066001)(82746002)(476003)(66946007)(966005)(36756003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB2647; H:BYAPR11MB3687.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 0Nnw5kgfUEe8UbAOqS+cjsQTB/smLoJHgQbJQfrUvvIwxoo5EjWtQILyHVj249EeTk8QjUvM//xri3aVc5g5yQ8blSIppdrS7ICQT8PWGnHy7aZvNpn8W6nkrFyauCl8OV/58CQr67eFiq+67QWrT7djDHtiADk584v4jJXIqKkSSyslFfSZwImLy+Jhjb5IhGlbv0/ttMUuNh2wQ8itBcoCRlJqW5mrnknsDRkTMR0TAcFtQC/CFSeBjUWuoUyxtLBUxqKrXiF2C6KFfN+kv3szL4/iT2vhLTV9MnB72C9Xh9twf9TSNCgQr8A6TPtKjcxVybYhgR+Qe6pmX/QsQcJQb3iVcH/MMnuBMV24xtvbaIg1gzke7yeHFSc3HJsmOYSqFF/yKtQFvtKmTvi8k1155kRCWHibMqHqsmkS4s0=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <700D58B00773E9419F9C4ABA0D0A3A0F@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 388abea9-346a-4ac5-5079-08d6d2bada00
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 May 2019 07:08:48.1066 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2647
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4XETAm6BlnNONuHrCwGpwzjiAuU>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
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: Tue, 07 May 2019 07:08:55 -0000

Hi Ron,

We use the next header value 59 to identify at the receiver that there is no other kind of Internet Protocol beneath to be processed. 
Note that we are *not* using 59 to identify the fact that it is an ethernet header (i.e. other non Internet-Protocols would also use the 59 to identify that no further IP header processing has to be performed). The SID identifies that an Ethernet header follows the IPv6 extension headers.

Thanks,
Pablo.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Monday, 6 May 2019 at 02:48
To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

    Folks,
    
    According to Section 4.4 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-00, when processing the End.DX2 SID, the Next Header must be equal to 59. Otherwise, the packet will be dropped.
    
    In the words of the draft, "We conveniently reuse the next-header value 59 allocated to IPv6 No Next Header [RFC8200].  When the SID corresponds to function End.DX2 and the Next-Header value is 59, we know that an Ethernet frame is in the payload without any further header."
    
    According to Section 4.7 RFC 8200, " The value 59 in the Next Header field of an IPv6 header or any  extension header indicates that there is nothing following that header.  If the Payload Length field of the IPv6 header indicates the presence of octets past the end of a header whose Next Header field contains 59, those octets must be ignored and passed on unchanged if the packet is forwarded."
    
    Does the WG think that it is a good idea to reuse the Next Header value 59? Or would it be better to allocate a new Next Header value that represents Ethernet?
    
                                                              Ron
    
    
    Juniper Internal
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    ipv6@ietf.org
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------