Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Mon, 14 October 2019 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 03D1F12094B for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 2dBNKYndocfq for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (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 C11C5120920 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x9EHBUwH011672; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:19:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=4SWG8ILwbu+6dC4ORSw/w6VBVrHeSBsUgaWcNOS+fOw=; b=Gc4QTJ0ERi1k3PXOuEbOlFpQnWlDjC32ADw41d30dctKShzs+vCcKeIcinBKPVO6ZKqc wvhrJcJqnWs4W5v9TU9fYBZ77069paZl8myNYmyWLQgR1DFfrcM1e3t93ssNxPfZINuN kz+jNg2bbFpRYRYRBFchY12NflqYNr6JJFRwPekF7VDoTmOYjteAJRKlbs06aYvIL2Uc iVzbYIVGdKo6KoDsrV9TbL5ZtYX5IGmHWbxGGKX1WEcd6c0SSLQ7LjRwrNZoSWp3phBW R6Xzt0OjnbaNkE9k7PB66E3cTT/mMjMDm5eco+iWwozo5vH0n9dbx8MdDeJFc80Umg5c IA==
Received: from nam02-cy1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02lp2052.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.37.52]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vmp3brpun-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:19:44 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=fUVIR3EHCgKudXMy1tlDkeyrwIhTlEJ1NnGOfb+YT/9QRHOhoe2noYRx21e2CEamtnbwAU6tIDTBdCcmP98c70bq6+Pj2ZzSZ2hP8uUjKu4wNvzFLUskf/wuZeVEjV7Q3tKtHVVPVEMApzTNoqABxh7M9fmG0ALoWAmyH0cnvgJWe59oA1LG8orz4ECCMCPMVFO3gvrLHLK6FuL3E4PY+57e81z7Mn/OmXZoS5VOKjQu20FWuOlYyS5KkI4yMjmJQIVcbt0xFT5Zf7VlRE9GFugCi+BDASBeoeuXWyU9BVEhAU4jxtwpOvtpifCJOBJbW6QRQJSRUKXstPPAmB3aKw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4SWG8ILwbu+6dC4ORSw/w6VBVrHeSBsUgaWcNOS+fOw=; b=CB24bRakkIDt2o/qApZSU9RNv7FJWJagnVGkTQAntn4amOawO3A1+FlwJPcW4ROJzmCiuc3yoD+Jw8EaASEMMM/Xt+IZsfuuFzngCahFaZMuhRm1vAUVyMUbqW0Clg45iLnEM0xpdIdMbGqsbEF78FPBqc9NgU8nzCrn8Ntlj2pI0XwUZFN17wuYJBnpAi7IqfbiQxtCikixN1uweiZ5WaROCpnaSIDFYYfqM6ow4lK6bLlygSE4SEREPD4QGZ9J8ZUAPGyfKtsIHtMf8g6VmUeiLWlY7NtWt8KAxcYBZoKVBSynWO7jn+i/yGkElPbiKRn7Kny4vhZE06UmctNGVg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
Received: from BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.28.88) by BN7PR05MB5684.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.28.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2347.15; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:19:41 +0000
Received: from BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c9d9:5faf:5aee:ee8d]) by BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c9d9:5faf:5aee:ee8d%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2347.023; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:19:41 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>
CC: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs
Thread-Index: AQHVggyYvtOzs/3490quKcl2oFy9jKdZKiJggAAE5oCAAByYwIAAVXMAgAAntgCAAJlzEA==
Content-Class:
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:19:41 +0000
Message-ID: <BN7PR05MB5699758BF49AFF2F70CA2BA3AE900@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SN6PR05MB5710CBAF8E6DF307401A2166AE9D0@SN6PR05MB5710.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <f5eb739b-9ae4-433e-e6c0-8bcdb7bc575e@si6networks.com> <BYAPR05MB5703169601886283700608A5AE9F0@BYAPR05MB5703.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B6FE2A8B-B23B-4E9C-BB33-F6A5BD78C52B@gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB5699E5EA714CC64456771712AE940@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1076F074-EB35-4D38-9949-4A241C946E07@gmail.com> <1fce4e24590847348894d10ca8bd5816@nokia-sbell.com> <D3FE1CA3-A8D1-4392-8EEC-CDCC7FC0827F@gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB56993D1127A8CA9CCC0E4A9AAE970@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <213BB95D-0E06-4E9A-B552-2A2466DC42AF@gmail.com> <04711680-e9c4-1159-58af-609517ee8bdf@joelhalpern.com> <CABNhwV3SyZNY6GrJF+wpgTmpM6DSts4gXQgdFTEgWfN876u5WQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1Ym_AG7svmPUpmjGz600QyGRvtY5xNP0_K-hoGewUGTA@mail.gmail.com> <424b13a9a9bf4802b57c0609c92baad2@nokia-sbell.com> <BN7PR05MB569958ADB8E7BFF6C7EBC56AAE910@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHcTyCyO5Z3KyP5otW1Xgq7un2ypEGtjjWpr00j2t9dGw@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB5699B5C42BDBD5BF244CB4A8AE910@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MME70PYa7mkTRPKHqhg_1cMAvHLU0qZJx-=CjVy-ZKXpAA@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB56999C4E2F2D8E045D47E3C1AE900@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5ae3ab05035f439db46fe5126b1476db@nokia-sbell.com> <CAO42Z2wA0TPFNQkfOA0iNMfojb8D=QcntwoUi0LbWN7no0DRQA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wA0TPFNQkfOA0iNMfojb8D=QcntwoUi0LbWN7no0DRQA@mail.gmail.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=2019-10-14T17:19:39.1371306Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=Juniper Business Use Only; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=aa82de09-a55c-454c-b92f-7dd0617d2733; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Extended_MSFT_Method=Automatic
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.2.0.14
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [108.28.233.91]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5c620a0f-d04a-43c4-c600-08d750cab34f
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR05MB5684:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN7PR05MB5684D9B1D7E7922DAA418774AE900@BN7PR05MB5684.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 01901B3451
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(136003)(376002)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(7736002)(4326008)(6506007)(66476007)(53546011)(64756008)(76116006)(6436002)(66556008)(66446008)(99286004)(66946007)(14454004)(54906003)(110136005)(316002)(6246003)(33656002)(186003)(478600001)(5660300002)(76176011)(26005)(256004)(14444005)(606006)(52536014)(25786009)(55016002)(236005)(8676002)(966005)(6306002)(81156014)(81166006)(9686003)(102836004)(74316002)(7696005)(54896002)(2906002)(8936002)(446003)(86362001)(71200400001)(66066001)(476003)(71190400001)(11346002)(486006)(6116002)(3846002)(790700001)(229853002)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN7PR05MB5684; H:BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: MJrbOYCGyl9QAQmybRK8wI6ZLYNC9bawXU0Wj2YK0yyVxApDDMlWtDy5rdJcELU/EaPEGQ7vKyg9KQClDmL7ACtIorEI7Y4vQrCJ0lTpdkL7t5nprD8vs7i865p4HAgCfO6bwdxN3yRMOetjW/KL6WMXtdGITmdLbIhRVQh1PbHNUMjNEc6fClZRAHdLrIUV3fXCxPVQp/vzBG/7B30hO1lAwifV9D4K1XbdqxPsP3A7pMT7DLKCbCNQGzCOJg7AvURMeDU4GLoF4c2wIr0++w/NT/XmVmD2ZDu5uYwRL5gQGRHn14TlygcCEFpzkb6URWEPByLg/1kJ64WjhyNEF3duZYWNLy4JYQAGcL/wbm/wgWiezxUGAtKqoNo/UOyCG8HqyicRg2wq1nP6PcupX++IefY8HIGQ5JoFE/47DwoR0F25HxIhwFuqb2SKVZ4Xl1goofgIlrX2fZF9ciXPrA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN7PR05MB5699758BF49AFF2F70CA2BA3AE900BN7PR05MB5699namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5c620a0f-d04a-43c4-c600-08d750cab34f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Oct 2019 17:19:41.6950 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: gsoqu1JrCUyFdFKP3fqekVybdFAmaN1gofRlAXn897//3mx/0LrKnguhCq19gQMtuguajJiWiOaCLFlSGyrojg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR05MB5684
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,1.0.8 definitions=2019-10-14_09:2019-10-11,2019-10-14 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1908290000 definitions=main-1910140145
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/5GWgB_X_5JSOpND-P_1TkwcuFbk>
Subject: Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs
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, 14 Oct 2019 17:19:49 -0000

Mark,

Clearly, this does not comply with the addressing architecture. But I think that the best we can do is to limit the damage.

                                                                           Ron


From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 4:08 AM
To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs


On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, 16:45 Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai), <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com<mailto:weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>> wrote:
Hi Ron:

Make sense, If there is a dedicated IPv6 block for SRv6 SID within SRv6 domain, then trouble situation you described does NOT occur, because the IPv6 address covered within SRv6 SID prefix does not be involved ICMPv6 ND protocol, because they are not configured under IP interfaces connected to “Link”.

That does not comply with the IPv6 Addressing Architecture RFC.

(I think this is the 4th time SPRING have or are ignoring IPv6 specifications.)

I also think that the authors of NET-PGM draft have indicated that SRv6 SID has a separate IPv6 block in their Draft, but they don’t yet clearly stated which IPv6 block will be used for it.


--------------------------------------
Cheers !


WANG Weibin



Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: 2019年10月14日 9:23
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs

Robert,

Yeah, there were a few typos in my original message. What I meant to say was:


  *   If a /64 contains a SID, it MUST NOT contain any addresses that represent interfaces.
  *   If a /64 contains an address that represents an interface, it MUST NOT contain SIDs.

If we don’t do this, we have to specify how nodes behave when they receive ICMPv6 NS messages in which the target is:


  *   A locally instantiated SID
  *   A SID learned from the IGP

                                                                      Ron


From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 6:57 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Addresses and SIDs

Hi Ron,

/64 prefix is a pile of addresses ... if someone would be to follow your suggestion I could not allocate some blocks of that prefix on R1, then some other blocks on R2 then yet more on my servers.

You said:

“With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either:


  *   Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or
  *   Be unassigned”

Maybe you meant to say something else:

“When a /64 is used as SRv6 locator prefix, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either:


  *   Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or
  *   Be unassigned”
But then you sent this to SPRINT indicating that 6MAN should be the audience :).

Best,
R.


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:45 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> wrote:
Robert,

I’m having a hard time understanding exactly how I have violated the longest match principle. Could you provide:


  *   A pointer to a statement of the longest match principle
  *   A few words regarding how I have violated it

                                                              Ron


From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 5:24 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: IPv6 Addresses and SIDs

Hi Ron,

I disagree.

Your suggestion violates longest prefix match principle in routing.

It is huge waist of address space and is not specific to IPv6 at all.

Let me describe the deployment case where your suggestion would cause it to break:

I have /64 prefix where a few  /128s from that space I allocate to local interfaces making it a local v6 destinations on those nodes.

However in the spirit of CIDR I still want to to use some blocks of that space - say  /126 or /124 as blocks which I only use to trigger local NAT as per rfc6296. And NAT does not require local address to be a destination address so it would be a big disservice to kill such deployment option.

Many thx,
R.


On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:59 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Folks,

I think that we need a global rule that says:

“With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either:


  *   Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or
  *   Be unassigned”

The 6man WG will need to make such a statement since it owns RFC 4291.

                                                             Ron


Juniper Business Use Only


Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!8WoA6RjC81c!SEkBOAmRsYlBjRKWx1gZ4eegKkzZOKQgTtZuXxMv5TgCiZMT9xl0OH0Q8pbdZee9$>