Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 03 April 2024 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 A08A5C14F61D for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4lDzyUmjXKa0 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CF3CC14F610 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2d6c220a377so2476311fa.2 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1712175763; x=1712780563; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Punt3k3bnRhbbvl0b254OuJ44gmYX2RW9PPamqGlai0=; b=dHgRpackFKO+VkZRXXE5dPdjW/8llsVlVqCBQb5mXYdFlfw2Xm3gwGlrms2j9zkBy1 JS8QmJPorXQ04J2lVUeVyDG+feNud87qvJ8dRztuLcrdUkb32zNZVO6uR90rk09Raeg2 tmjialRVSPKNRFFU1uTA0Wf7zIDMMahHWY53bw2bC7RpIY1d4vWmrIM3nl97Z2n6MOJk TlCiyH8Yl3AODAQkyOv2sUJoEfZXPCsJFPMdDL7e6DDvcYK2if8LCHR2G8DKj6qjCwvl 2Ft7vxdA/sS8P6IC/hcWv5JNAQLGg7luGRAnZ5BkSKRY3h5bkhOulkNd49lSiz9OV6ic YMXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712175763; x=1712780563; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Punt3k3bnRhbbvl0b254OuJ44gmYX2RW9PPamqGlai0=; b=YZNHW8HXKAdlvE7YvMRGc4002yALWpfBcyyoM+0eSH+6tawrq0+t9N8spDXXjeFPgA qndBdOuDEr407zRUC7G5yMXK3+Bm+kcYC71AvV80d622WWTeQ30qOs6TzbRNP7A3Lakb g7A4aREnsYwwWVF/QXOHQaOchmt9koCGBZ87zmpnqkrWQ53Ncz2qG2Qcw6LPRuftcvTu OQ6weFpPc1wHNeCXNH0l1wZDCghJnDO1pj0uND5sOdilOOWi+WW1kCfZBlIBQ80nHdM/ bmiCYVii8PKUVc552G75xtioGdHeFIpveJvNgvnmGMMYDYE52Lp9LKjEYEfysIt9sPxQ gyOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz0+mBPGX8cesKJg/WKvv3GWoi1MYjfiQijPhKLsXXjWyJ+QtMW JILkkGIyYrqVFogXx6IkbbgkRvy2DdND0S7I2k6gajMhH/C/mp3u9plaOjtC90Xx8EJSv8y3hC7 pVrG+THID9CqgFb4umkiMvVYMHDMNeQXmRV0Oyg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF/XdlY/KSUsgdV4GP3Dd3N1MH+WFTUiLuatulkTTBfQ7LY4REQVhPqdybrH9Zz6iZxqwkRRAH58cD4/O8/Elo=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0e3:0:b0:2d8:12a4:8c38 with SMTP id h3-20020a2eb0e3000000b002d812a48c38mr487292ljl.32.1712175762918; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 13:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMESsyCYJwWP48=a9RWx3n8txS1eR4VLnUeE++VEdHKFeKOjw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyCYJwWP48=a9RWx3n8txS1eR4VLnUeE++VEdHKFeKOjw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 22:22:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMH9-F0nWG6zDZXxAGOQ7T8T9bUn74f4o=Fh2p0zah86Gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000247104061536fcfa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6M9PfnwvNGlqTh5ljcmmx0h3Tu0>
Subject: Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 20:22:49 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

Section 6.5 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression describes the
> behavior when an originating node inside an SRv6 domain creates a
> packet with a C-SID as the final destination.
> *This description differs from the text in Section 8.1 of RFC8200.*


I would like you to clarify the above statement - specifically of the last
sentence.

Reason for this that after looking at both drafts I find section 6.5 of the
subject draft to be exactly in line with RFC8200 section 8.1 especially
with the paragraf which says:







*         If the IPv6 packet contains a Routing header, the Destination
     Address used in the pseudo-header is that of the final
 destination.  At the originating node, that address will be in         the
last element of the Routing header; at the recipient(s),         that
address will be in the Destination Address field of the         IPv6
header.*

So before we dive into solutions (as Andrew has already provided a few of)
I think we should first agree on what precise problem are we solving here ?

Many thx,
Robert

PS. As a side note I spoke with my hardware folks - just to check if
validation of upper-layer checksum is even an option for transit nodes. The
answer is NO as most data plane hardware can read at most 256 bytes of
packets. So unless there is some specialized hardware processing up to 9K
packets in hardware at line rates this entire discussion about checksum
violations, fears of firing appeals is just smoke.