IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sun, 24 May 2020 21:33 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 739673A0C62 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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=raszuk.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 ypT9BCukmNoI for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04493A0B76 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id k19so13542384edv.9 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dRCxcxuiE5ovgmrjHWQRaM0EoMkzhKu6rbBIxrAe8xE=; b=cKwgLWDVf9KD701Gbfzh7oM16JApaJTNd5aj6mh/6dI1aLH6ianwh7cDygpgOfIzqZ t2pgmdZX1ya8fZN6BFbmtvJONJGgMqvslrc5FJWDsGo/kmsIuhJmSoQLTgTw5QEdV/YB 69VX1e05KSBBBNhSdas7Mjr7YvRkr18fe8fc7z197b2CsauZ6LNBhPi2wq82wpguJrlR VJYcwG+5sS1n2IbRXFE2fDWvJ8LSxgTFDtCnjuCrL7jSAV85QdZoZuLd8XbUfTDhLgtm M7BvzVLvp9SLeplS60Y5Z38EnpXGfneTwUWtjXMP6oLE5R4NC7D9AkwVie19wCRFp+/4 OmLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dRCxcxuiE5ovgmrjHWQRaM0EoMkzhKu6rbBIxrAe8xE=; b=DnJ26tvBnsqoSKuSJrkJz+whcAV1h9ytSpjbniVk0T7/tpICxTKOD2nC9yw/o7b8I3 2waUyu0WXEd7uXOu2L8v/62bbLsmJpB0i++tbu1xp5jgiz6jdHPt/KtWsfY4YWIxyJl4 O5NC8ondIQs19W1FYDonaKbako4WIzNFiCyGeGOMrE1L0t//y411WulAkOqosp8iDXqr Irr04UluQmu/jTCySF7uqindPF/uTw3jiDSvtBOO0s//eMe3P+WGmsdEisDawjbp6HHK zHzEKqQ1P8o7gRQhTpoIDKBbi4cG/Wmui/6iQNJLOemhzG03R0fD5tNsoHyu4n2NNDWE ltWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531MxvENz8Vtwdts8Uwfo+7TkPzh3GMch9rmdcZRwGMJY4Yd28BF 7ye1XP4IEpNY9q5VW8wKcW0QYKygg1uzTUwaD5/jYA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwuizPOFi8fjBilXuj73cfnHBeiQ7Brpk5wBd65SRPEXJnX9LnuYS7vLB87oJCcpuaTGS0DzGNx5x/WLvPTf5U=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cb8f:: with SMTP id r15mr13035745edt.120.1590355992133; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2CD12@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB63482CFA4D5AB938D5A4B818AEB40@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A37DC6@dggeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB63489256A7C8357BEF526EE2AEB20@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMGLj9OgFCcsB21oWXbcCqHZ7B4qTvCcrK9LXuKDYVu_vQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36yJ5CS6ykQhd_sW3T6=PjVJNOqewtg2joUtHnbsZPxSA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36yJ5CS6ykQhd_sW3T6=PjVJNOqewtg2joUtHnbsZPxSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 23:33:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHoTGBg4inhMqoK2DN053KnJ7CuCsg0zro33bt07vUR6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fa494d05a66b9b7e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6Zl1NBFgE7gM_jxzkXg5e-be3pU>
Subject: Re: [spring] How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
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: Sun, 24 May 2020 21:33:17 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thank you !

That confirms my understanding ie that DOH will be examined at each segment
endpoint hop if DOH is present.

So just like PSSI or TPF suggest a build in filtering (for example by
target ID) is required to avoid misuse.

Kind regards,
Robert.



> Robert,
>
> Look at Destination Options before the routing header in RFC8200.
> These are intended to be processed at every intermediate destination
> in the routing header and precede any fragment header.
>
> Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email