Re: [spring] spring WG Adoption Call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

My assumption in suggesting the solution I did was that the DHCP server 
would be configured properly and would comply with what we say the 
requirements are.  I am not asking the protocol to enforce the domain.  
I am asking that the document be clear about when this DHCP usage is 
consistent with the underlying RFCs.  And to tell folks not to violate 
those RFCs.

If the authors or the WG want to take it even further, that is their 
right / privilege.

Yours,

Joel

On 7/14/2023 2:19 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Ok last email on this ... let's talk IETF and standardization as you 
> prefer.
>
> You asked:
> /
> /
> /Speaking as an individual participant, it seems to me that the 
> description of using CPE as SRv6 endpoints needs to state explicitly 
> and clearly that this assumes that the CPE are managed by the access 
> operator, and that all of the relevant endpoints are part of a single 
> operator / domain./
>
> But subject draft is defining two new DHCPv6 options 
> OPTION_IA_SRV6_LOCATOR & OPTION_IALOCATOR. No more no less. There is 
> no OPTION_LIMITED_DOMAIN_MEMBER which when received the former two can 
> be processed.
>
> So any client will be able to get those options.
>
> If you (or others) would be really trying to make this work 
> standards wise you would define an extension to protocol(s) to 
> indicate that the querying node is part of what you called a "limited 
> domain" or not. Today to the best of my understanding such boundary is 
> protocol wise undefined.
>
> Otherwise irrespective if authors add proposed text or not the 
> behaviour will be identical in practice.
>
> Kind regards,
> Robert
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 6:27 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     You may not subscribe to the notion of limited domains. But the
>     RFCs do.  Hence, the WG is required to do so.  An operator can of
>     course do anything they want, and they choose their risks.  But
>     IETF standardization work is subject to the restrictions we as a
>     community agree to.
>
>     Yours,
>
>     Joel
>
>     On 7/14/2023 12:25 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>     > then anyone, almost anywhere in the Internet, can inject such
>>     packets.
>>
>>     Sure can. And just like without SRv6 I am protecting my hosts
>>     from such injections.
>>
>>     See SRv6 has a very broad range of use cases. But it does not
>>     promise a secure and encrypted pipe (at least last time I
>>     checked). There are better protocols focusing just to do that.
>>
>>     So imagine I want to enhance my packets between v6 speaking hosts
>>     with demux value so when the packet arrives it goes to its own
>>     dedicated namespace. And as before I am protecting such
>>     namespaces from attacks the same way I protect my default
>>     namespace (as example I do have on secure machines a whitelisted
>>     set of rules who can talk to me directly).
>>
>>     That is why I never subscribed to this notion of limited domain
>>     in respect to building SRv6 walls :)
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Robert
>>
>>
>>     On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 6:15 PM Joel Halpern
>>     <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>         If a deployment of SRv6 uses unsecured tunnels as a means to
>>         deliver SRv6 packets between pieces of the domain, then
>>         anyone, almost anywhere in the Internet, can inject such
>>         packets.  That is not a limited domain.  It is a wide open
>>         domain.
>>
>>         Yours,
>>
>>         Joel
>>
>>         On 7/14/2023 12:01 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>>
>>>         Why would you expect this to always unconditionally use
>>>         "secure tunnels" ? For lot's of applications basic
>>>         encapsulation is sufficient. Note that I mentioned the case
>>>         where my sites are connected over ISP not the Internet.
>>>
>>>         Besides if there is concern about data protection or data
>>>         integrity lot's of applications use app level encryption so
>>>         asking for transport tunnel security would be redundant at
>>>         best.
>>>
>>>         Thx,
>>>         R.
>>>
>>>         On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 5:42 PM Joel Halpern
>>>         <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>             If they want to specify in the draft that the CPE are
>>>             operator managed by a single operator, and that they use
>>>             secure tunnels (not just arbitrary overlay) between the
>>>             BRAS then we can as a WG see if that suffices.  But the
>>>             draft doesn't currently say that.
>>>
>>>             Yours,
>>>
>>>             Joel
>>>
>>>             On 7/14/2023 11:40 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>>>             Joel,
>>>>
>>>>             Limited domain (if you will) can be also build in
>>>>             the overlay - unless you point me to any standards
>>>>             track RFC which says otherwise. If I connect over ISP
>>>>             with v6 I can run my own limited domain over such ISP
>>>>             between hosts in my sites.
>>>>
>>>>             Of course ISP may recognize that I am actually sending
>>>>             v6 packets with extension headers and drop those ...
>>>>             but this is not a concern for this thread nor for IETF.
>>>>             In such a case I will would switch an ISP :)
>>>>
>>>>             Cheers,
>>>>             R.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 5:33 PM Joel Halpern
>>>>             <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                 Nope.
>>>>
>>>>                 The host case for SRv6 is for hosts run by the
>>>>                 operator within their domain.  8986 explicitly
>>>>                 requires that SRv6 be used only within a limited
>>>>                 domain.
>>>>
>>>>                 It is clear from other comments that you do not
>>>>                 like this restriction.  That is your priviledge as
>>>>                 an individual.  But IETF work has to respect the
>>>>                 restriction.
>>>>
>>>>                 Yours,
>>>>
>>>>                 Joel
>>>>
>>>>                 On 7/14/2023 11:28 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>>>>                 Joel,
>>>>>
>>>>>                 *Point 1: *
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Reading RFC8986 I see in section 4.16.2 clear
>>>>>                 definition of SRv6 running on user hosts.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 /One of the applications of the USP flavor is when
>>>>>                 a packet with an SRH is destined to an /
>>>>>                 /application on hosts with smartNICs ("Smart
>>>>>                 Network Interface Cards") implementing /
>>>>>                 /SRv6. The USP flavor is used to remove the
>>>>>                 consumed SRH from the extension header /
>>>>>                 /chain before sending the packet to the host.
>>>>>                 /
>>>>>                 *Point 2: *
>>>>>                 *
>>>>>                 *
>>>>>                 If two hosts want for whatever reason to use SRv6
>>>>>                 over the provider's IPv6 underlay (and they may
>>>>>                 possibly benefit from DHCP allocation of locators)
>>>>>                 they can happily do so and I see nowhere in any
>>>>>                 SRv6 spec any mandate which would state a word
>>>>>                 against such deployment model.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Thx,
>>>>>                 Robert
>>>>>
>>>>>                 PS, This entire notion of "limited domain" is as
>>>>>                 you very well know the history is not a very
>>>>>                 technical thing ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 5:08 PM Joel Halpern
>>>>>                 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Speaking as an individual participant, it
>>>>>                     seems to me that the description of using CPE
>>>>>                     as SRv6 endpoints needs to state explicitly
>>>>>                     and clearly that this assumes that the CPE are
>>>>>                     managed by the access operator, and that all
>>>>>                     of the relevant endpoints are part of a single
>>>>>                     operator / domain. Otherwise, this usage
>>>>>                     violates the base rules for SRv6.
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Personally, I would like to see this fixed
>>>>>                     before adoption completes.
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Yours,
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Joel
>>>>>
>>>>>                     On 7/14/2023 9:44 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     I probably need to re-read the draft.  Does
>>>>>>                     the draft assume the CPE is part of the
>>>>>>                     operator domain?  Remember that SRv6 MUST be
>>>>>>                     used ONLY within a limited domain?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     Yours,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     Joel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     On 7/14/2023 2:22 AM, Weiqiang Cheng wrote:
>>>>>>>                     Hi Aijun,
>>>>>>>                     Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>                     We will add some text to describe that the
>>>>>>>                     CPE utilizes locators obtained through DHCP
>>>>>>>                     to provide differentiated services.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                     Best Regards
>>>>>>>                     Weiqiang Cheng
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                         *发件人：* Aijun Wang
>>>>>>>                         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>                         *发送时间：* 2023-07-14 11:19
>>>>>>>                         *收件人：* 'Alvaro Retana'
>>>>>>>                         <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>>>>>                         [e-mail]
>>>>>>>                         *抄送：*
>>>>>>>                         [e-mail];
>>>>>>>                         [e-mail]
>>>>>>>                         *主题：* 答复: [spring] spring WG Adoption
>>>>>>>                         Call for
>>>>>>>                         draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp
>>>>>>>                         Support its adoption.
>>>>>>>                         It will be more convincible to add some
>>>>>>>                         descriptions in the document that the
>>>>>>>                         CPE itself needs to obtain different
>>>>>>>                         IPv6 address that can differentiate the
>>>>>>>                         services that it can provide.
>>>>>>>                         Best Regards
>>>>>>>                         Aijun Wang
>>>>>>>                         China Telecom
>>>>>>>                         -----邮件原件-----
>>>>>>>                         发件人: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>                         [mailto:[e-mail]
>>>>>>>                         <mailto:[e-mail]>] 代表
>>>>>>>                         Alvaro Retana
>>>>>>>                         发送时间: 2023年7月5日 20:00
>>>>>>>                         收件人: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>                         抄送:
>>>>>>>                         [e-mail];
>>>>>>>                         [e-mail]
>>>>>>>                         主题: [spring] spring WG Adoption Call for
>>>>>>>                         draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp
>>>>>>>                         Dear WG:
>>>>>>>                         This message starts a two-week adoption
>>>>>>>                         call for
>>>>>>>                         draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp,
>>>>>>>                         ending on July/19.
>>>>>>>                         It "describes the method of assigning
>>>>>>>                         locators to SRv6 Endpoints through DHCPv6".
>>>>>>>                         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-spring-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp/
>>>>>>>                         Please review the draft and consider
>>>>>>>                         whether you support its adoption by the
>>>>>>>                         WG.  Please share any thoughts with the
>>>>>>>                         list to indicate support or opposition
>>>>>>>                         -- this is not a vote.
>>>>>>>                         If you are willing to provide a more
>>>>>>>                         in-depth review, please state it
>>>>>>>                         explicitly to give the chairs an
>>>>>>>                         indication of the energy level in the
>>>>>>>                         working group willing to work on the
>>>>>>>                         document.
>>>>>>>                         WG adoption is the start of the
>>>>>>>                         process.  The fundamental question is
>>>>>>>                         whether you agree the proposal is worth
>>>>>>>                         the WG's time to work on and whether
>>>>>>>                         this draft represents a good starting
>>>>>>>                         point.  The chairs are particularly
>>>>>>>                         interested in hearing the opinion of
>>>>>>>                         people who are not authors of the document.
>>>>>>>                         Thanks!
>>>>>>>                         Alvaro (for the Chairs)
>>>>>>>                         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>                         spring mailing list
>>>>>>>                         [e-mail]
>>>>>>>                         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>                     spring mailing list
>>>>>>>                     [e-mail]
>>>>>>>                     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>>>                     spring mailing list
>>>>>                     [e-mail]
>>>>>                     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     spring mailing list
>>     [e-mail]
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>