Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Tue, 03 March 2020 04:52 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 22FB13A1815; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:52:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 JDj9SCttmCNN; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 F0A843A1817; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id d15so2148590iog.3; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 20:52:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Nf4NQmRMWa8MMvSa+88Ili/Y9GDu4MQQMdcwrQ4ZVYA=; b=a6guyrXTOaZKZPQtJG2HOm+mhIGXNV9x1pvMZLus8q0OiYobFyjunqYZnUolhbLO77 rfuLOOlpVf4x7dh2I+Artp+F7reyPLajS+/stQV8V/6w1SFPOAfwPzqHIWRgA2vn5Pgo URqvE+l/E+Z8Gm/92RSrHJC77ADPnuskfHyUK8dQNoNerH1IvlXocUKH7iO5FIqoCW11 xYKPdlAuTud8tpqGL6e2UDtHnMaBUY5ioZfZqiKasYp5lVElEBuunhgSahxxp7LyaWm5 h/DNKpsieKkP4caUmxc3XoTKrQX4j3T7BJusSVDIlnmKDC3NSE/zUlgE80rqVJpy6nzg 1YNA==
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=Nf4NQmRMWa8MMvSa+88Ili/Y9GDu4MQQMdcwrQ4ZVYA=; b=qMcJcKlLmvgzmEpDNj3qSEjViofHPxfTYtUZb+uwrfyyhjecNjxByURCJKqsdLXTDt GCEkhAk43RWeTMxwbS1x/OpgGtbdgp2/ruMZSaTDmo7hQJhtn87b/l4O8+APDw2ecLFF 1lZ4BixIO5G7qNiWWzvUhR72NWTRXNVr4foyamdoibeAeKySSQ+ukNFJ1KnDw4vAQ5xV 5GNXwL0yJRyYf5vmKws8jTo+DquLXhElIPqoDSEkXuowsJ3LudGNYaozFuPAeW0JSGd+ Dhsi4kquiaNfLwGUgWIZ8qSywrQsGYRWezA5fCB048xFg6uIpTP1tNicQwQfIV4b4+n+ ULIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2p4CPEmUodEUOLp4lHZOiafPmanfBSMtjIAYZ/1O4DukeOQpQD L61gDXYVplwPGI485AAWHmcFT51lwX0iAIgKyNs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvbcHQJRh+6QVqshK2O9GfEkcZo/ElRLpgbw/g2EwnvqmSGk9lPaoVoRAJH9r623SwzGw6cGleSDyn6O9cVeYU=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8f97:: with SMTP id l23mr2452271iol.158.1583211131060; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 20:52:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <965ff6bbf1cb4c2f8d48b7b535a0cf5b@huawei.com> <CAJE_bqcTNWt==mtYKeNVXOBAzBNLG=+_mXQQ9xMHYOCDRqCb_Q@mail.gmail.com> <8ef02a5465104d1996546bc4cbea7ebb@huawei.com> <CABNhwV1MZgvVTDH+32Q0DViwP43U=XUHD61DVeLbnA4_3-oq8g@mail.gmail.com> <cc81dc2fbd4c4e3db3c1d2259386bf00@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <cc81dc2fbd4c4e3db3c1d2259386bf00@huawei.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 23:51:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1RvwpOt_r-N8bs2oz0Fdc1xK5WTF=YcXALYBC3JfJ2cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000124675059fec11c9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/7KGDiIpb_Ejr97mvZ23ip_BkVFY>
Subject: Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - 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: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 04:52:15 -0000

Hi Jingrong

I am following what you displayed and it makes sense. In section 4.21.1 for
the PSP flavor what was confusing was it said that the End.X with PSP
flavor can pop the SRH.  The way it’s written,  to me it reads that any P
router can pop the SRH when the last SID is written to the DA. So if the
SRH SID list happens to not steer to the egress PE and ended a few hops
early,  and If PSP is true then the SRH could be popped early on any P
node.  Maybe I am reading to far into the verbiage.  I think since End.X
could be any P transit router what I am saying could happen.

4.21.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-07#section-4.21.1>.
PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH

   After the instruction 'update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL]' is executed,
   the following instructions must be added:

 1.   IF updated SL = 0 & PSP is TRUE
 2.      pop the top SRH                                         ;; Ref1





   Ref1: The received SRH had SL=1.  When the last SID is written in the
   DA, the End, End.X and End.T functions with the PSP flavour pop the
   first (top-most) SRH.  Subsequent stacked SRH's may be present but
   are not processed as part of the function.


At each hop each node copies the SID to DA and updates the SL = SL -1

I am depicting an incoming SL value to each node and then each node updates
the SL pointer along the path hop by hop.

PSP mode

CE1----[PE1----{SL=2} - P2--{SL=1} -P3--pop--PE4]----CE2

PSP disabled (USP)

CE1----[PE1----{SL=2} - P2--{SL=1} -P3---{SL=0}--PE4 pop]----CE2

USD  (USD) - Decapsulation & forward native packet payload to customer CE

CE1----[PE1----{SL=2} - P2--{SL=1} -P3---{SL=0}--PE4 dencap]----CE2

Thanks

Gyan

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 7:59 PM Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <
xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
> In my understanding, PSP is used right in a P node, works for both End and
> End.X ( I haven’t known End.T very well yet).
>
>
>
> Suppose:
>
> CE1----[PE1----P2----P3----PE4]----CE2
>
> PE1 encapsulation the customer packet with an outer IPv6 header and an
> SRH, the packet arriving P2 will be:
>
> (SA=PE1, DA=P2<End>) (SL=2, PE4<End.DT4>, P3<End.X>, P2<End>)
>  (customer-packet)
>
>
>
> Then, the packet arriving P3 will be:
>
> (SA=PE1, DA=P3<End.X>) (SL=1, PE4<End.DT4>, P3<End.X>, P2<End>)
>  (customer-packet)
>
>
>
> In Non-PSP mode, the packet will be sent to PE4 like this:
>
> (SA=PE1, DA=PE4<End.DT4>) (SL=0, PE4<End.DT4>, P3<End.X>, P2<End>)
>  (customer-packet)
>
>
>
> In PSP mode, the packet will be sent to PE4 like this:
>
> (SA=PE1, DA=PE4<End.DT4>) (customer-packet)
>
>
>
> For you assumption, “Since every PE in an SR domain both SRv6 or SR-MPLS
> identical to MPLS would be both a SR source node and final destination node
> of an LSP.”
>
> I don’t think that’s always true, you can find an example I was recently
> thinking about in another mail:
> VM----TOR----Spine----Superspine----[PE1----P2----P3----PE4]----subscribers.
>
> Even if it is true for some network, the capability to handle the SRH on a
> receiving packet is different than the encapsulation of an outer IPv6
> header with an SRH header.
>
> Sending (with encapsulation) and receiving (with
> recognizing/processing/demultiplexing),  they are not necessarily the same
> ---- like the things to fragment and assembly.
>
> A PE may be well capable of encapsulation everything (like BFD template),
> but may fail to process a little thing that it is unrecognized.
>
> It may just drop any packet with Next Header value other than 4/41/47/etc.
>
> It may send such packet with any routing header to its slow-path for the
> compliance but lose the necessary performance.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Jingrong
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra [mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 2, 2020 4:20 AM
> *To:* Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* 6man@ietf.org; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; spring@ietf.org;
> 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
> *Subject:* Re: Suggest some text //RE: [spring] Request to close the LC
> and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jingrong,
>
>
>
>
>
> Can you help provide some clarification on the use cases for PSP flavor
> with end.X and end.T functions.
>
>
>
> Under Ref1 where it mentions end.X and end.T functions to use PSP knob  as
> well if desired.
>
>
>
> How would that work with any P node using the PSP function?
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-07#section-4.21
>
>
>
>
> 4.21.1
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-07#section-4.21.1>.
> PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH
>
>
>
>
>
>    After the instruction 'update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL]' is executed,
>
>    the following instructions must be added:
>
>
>
>  1.   IF updated SL = 0 & PSP is TRUE
>
>  2.      pop the top SRH                                         ;; Ref1
>
>
>
> Ref1: The received SRH had SL=1.  When the last SID is written in the
>
>    DA, the End, End.X and End.T functions with the PSP flavour pop the
>
>    first (top-most) SRH.  Subsequent stacked SRH's may be present but
>
>    are not processed as part of the function.
>
>
>
> Also trying to understand the reason given for PSP function for legacy
> final destination egress PE not being SRv6 capable.
>
>
>
> Since every PE in an SR domain both SRv6 or SR-MPLS identical to MPLS
> would be both a SR source node and final destination node of an LSP.  I am
> using the MPLS term LSP with SR as the concept of FEC destination which now
> is a prefix SID still exists that all traffic to egress final destination
>  PE is forwarded to.
>
>
>
> Since LSPs built to FEC destination are uni directional as they are with
> MPLS  and that would be the case as well for SR paths - the idea that the
> final destination PE would lack hardware capability for SRH processing does
> not make sense as the source and final destination node are one and the
> same.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:14 PM Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <
> xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Got it.
> Thanks for your clarification of your point.
>
> Jingrong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 神明達哉 [mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 9:28 AM
> To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
> Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <
> pcamaril@cisco.com>; Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; Bob
> Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;
> spring@ietf.org; 6man@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Suggest some text //RE: [spring] Request to close the LC and
> move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
> At Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:54:28 +0000,
> "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > The design of PSP for the benefits of deployment is based on the
> > understanding that it does not violate section 4 of RFC8200. In case
> > the RFC8200 text may be modified in the future, the PSP may also need to
> change accordingly.
>
> No, it violates Section 4 of RFC8200.  It's a pity that we have to discuss
> it at this level due to the poor editorial work then (I was also
> responsible for that as one of those reviewing the bis draft), but anyone
> who involved the discussion should know the intent of this text intended to
> say (borrowing from Ron's text) "Extension headers cannot be added to a
> packet after it has left the its source node and extension headers cannot
> be removed from a packet until it has arrived at its ultimate
> destination".  It might look "an attempt of blocking an innovation by a
> small group of vocal fundamentalists", but if you see the responses without
> a bias, you'd notice that even some of those who seem neutral about the
> underlying SRv6 matter interpret the text that way.
>
> I'd also note that simply because PSP violates RFC8200 doesn't immediately
> mean it (PSP) "needs to change".  It can update RFC8200 with explaining why
> it's necessary and justified.  That's what I requested as you summarized:
>
> > Jinmei: it should say it updates this part of RFC8200 and explain why
> it's justified.
>
> And, since PSP at least wouldn't break PMTUD, I guess the update proposal
> will have much more chance to be accepted than a proposal including EH
> insertion.  On the other hand, pretending there's no violation will
> certainly trigger many appeals and objections at the IETF last call (I'll
> certainly object to it).  In the end, it can easily take much longer, or
> even fail, than formally claiming an update to RFC8200.
>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> Gyan  Mishra
>
> Network Engineering & Technology
>
> Verizon
>
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>
> Phone: 301 502-1347
>
> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>
>
>
>
>
-- 

Gyan  Mishra

Network Engineering & Technology

Verizon

Silver Spring, MD 20904

Phone: 301 502-1347

Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com