Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 07 September 2019 12:16 UTC
Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 E708E1200DF; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 05:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 B3WkoQXvqV9r; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 05:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45B981200B1; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 05:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (ppp-94-69-228-20.home.otenet.gr [94.69.228.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1D24861BA; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 14:16:05 +0200 (CEST)
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <8fe37b98-cba3-ab74-3b00-68f8d46d850e@si6networks.com> <CY4PR11MB1541D0C4B5A65057BB241739C1B50@CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <634bdc26-2029-72fa-3fcd-d42923e47d85@si6networks.com> <CAOj+MMHA4pXAoJQSkC5OanRJ2SwD9minC7f_RB+bHUjcFSitAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <d47372dd-62ca-f997-8071-36f36e8965a1@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 15:15:13 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHA4pXAoJQSkC5OanRJ2SwD9minC7f_RB+bHUjcFSitAw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4aymWdwffegLmiQnIXu4n8T9LfE>
Subject: Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
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: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 12:16:10 -0000
On 7/9/19 14:43, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > So, double-checking if I understood correctly: You are saying that the > two uses cases that you are referring to already have an alternative > specification with encap/decap, but this document proposes to use EH > insertion to avoid the extra overhead of adding an additional IPv6 > header? > > > That is correct. > > I have been telling you this over and over again and you were choosing > not to accept it. Then you have answered my previous question. This EH-insertion thing is not solving any problem that cannot be solved with the standard that we have, and instead introduces potential problems. You shouldn't be surprised if, modulo social engineering, the proposal for EH insertion doesn't fly in 6man. That said, I think EH insertion should be removed from this document, on the basis that: * It breaks an existing standard (RFC8200) that explicitly banned it for technical concerns. * It doesn't solve a problem that cannot be solved with encap/decap, and in fact introduces potential problems. > So per your and few other comments he would not be able to add another > local (to the protection zone) SRH to his already encapsulated on > ingress packet, but would have to add another IPv6 encapsulation with > SRH to be in line with RFC8200 even if the only point of the new SRH is > local single dst detour and protection of arriving dst address in the > outer most IPv6 header. > > How efficient/wise that is ? That's certainly, at least, a cleaner design than inserting EHs in the network (and there's no such a thing as a free lunch). Inserting EHs is, if anything, a hack. As a side comment, if you have concerns wasted bits (and since you stress all the time that SR operates in a "limited domain") a quick comment would be: why do you use IPv6 addresses (IDs of global scope) to identify the SR nodes? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Fernando Gont
- [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in draf… Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Xiejingrong
- Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in … Fernando Gont