Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

[Reji Thomas <[e-mail]>]

Hi WG Folks,


Its not clear on why the SRv6 has to alter the address semantics and
push the service functions into v6 address space. Maybe rationale on
why this was done would help to appreciate why this path was chosen.
>From my understanding the SRv6+ spec shows these defined service
functions are best represented by destination options and is in line
with the IPv6 architecture document leaving the address space
semantics intact. In SRv6 the SID is defined as LOC:FUNCT:ARGS. It is
not clear on why this fixed address space would be sufficient for
arguments. I believe if the same cannot fit in 128 bit address space
it needs to be overflown into another SID or into a TLV. Doesn’t this
semantics suggest that TLV is the best place to encode this
information and should be in a destination option header in first
place?



It also seems that the TLV space in SR header might turn out to be a catch
all block wrt SR. For example  In-situ OAM IPv6 Options for Srv6 are
getting pushed to SR TLVs whereas for generic V6 I see there is another
draft (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-02)
 which
pushes them into destination options/hop-by-hop.  With the dilution of
semantics of headers are we looking at more conflicts of SRv6 model with
generic V6 features in future?.



 HMAC TLV is used to protect the SRH. It not clear on how the same would
interoperate with AH. When AH is included are we going to end with both AH
and HMAC TLV ?



The uSID draft for reducing the SRH overhead seems to be a hack at present
and its still not clear on how the same is going to be used with function
semantics.



SRv6+  confirms to the V6 architecture, explains the rationale behind the
design and is non ambiguous to start with. Till now there has not been any
valid shortcomings brought forth with the Srv6+ design. I saw a mention
that SRv6+ needs to distribute the SID to address binding and hence require
extensions to protocols which is not what was intended by SR. Considering
at a bare minimum we would need a software/microcode update to support even
the SRH parsing, I didn’t understand why  protocol extension and mapping
for SR support with V6 is a bad idea. Please correct me if there is a gap
in my understanding.



In view of the above ,I support SRv6+ work to continue in the SPRING WG.




Regards

Reji



> From: spring <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>
>
> Date: Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:23 AM
> To: Rob Shakir <robjs=[e-mail]>, SPRING WG List <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.
>
> Rob,
>
> There may be an elephant in the room that needs addressing?.
>
> Over the years, the IPv6 community has specified a very tight architecture
> that encodes some information in IPv6 addresses, other information in
> Routing headers, and still other information in Destination Options
> headers. SRv6+ adheres strictly to this architecture. Because it reuses
> IPv6 machinery, its specification promises it be painless and its
> deployment promises to be safe. To date, there has been no significant
> technical criticism of SRv6+. Only a claim that SRv6 is nearly complete and
> good enough. (Both of those claims may require scrutiny).
>
> By contrast, SRv6 varies from the spirit, if not the letter of the IPv6
> architecture. It encodes things in IPv6 address that have never been
> encoded in IPv6 addresses before. It attempts to encode everything else in
> the Routing header, as if the other IPv6 extension headers didn?t exist. It
> frequently tests the limits of RFC 8200 compliance.
>
> This creates a situation in which each variance from IPv6 orthodoxy
> requires another. For example, because SRv6 encodes instructions in IPv6
> addresses, draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam is required. And now,
> draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam creates its own variances from the IPv6
> orthodoxy. OAM information is encoded in the Routing header and the Routing
> header must be examined, even when Segment Left is equal to zero.
>
> I invite everyone to consider how TI-LFA an uSID will interact.
>
> So, why would the IETF would want to prevent work on the more
> conservative, SRv6+ approach?  This brings us to the back to the elephant
> in the room?..
>
> Until very recently, relatively few router vendors have supported IPv6
> extension headers in ASICs. If an IPv6 packet contained any extension
> headers at all, it was sent to the slow path.
>
> SRv6+ encourages router vendors to support both the Routing and
> Destination Options header in ASICs. This sets vendors on a path on a path
> towards more complete implementation of the architecture that the IPv6
> community has developed so carefully over the years. It encourages vendors
> to commit more and more of RFC 8200 to ASICs.
>
> SRv6 encourages router vendors to support the Routing header in ASICs,
> while doing everything possible to mitigate the need to support Destination
> Options in ASICs. This may be a necessary expedient for many platforms.
> However, it should not be the only approach, or even the long-term approach
> for the IETF.
>
>
>                                                          Ron
>
>
>
>
> From: spring <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rob Shakir
> Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 5:04 PM
> To: SPRING WG List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [spring] Beyond SRv6.
>
>
> Hi SPRING WG,
>
>
> Over the last 5+ years, the IETF has developed Source Packet Routing in
> NetworkinG (SPRING) aka Segment Routing for both the MPLS (SR-MPLS) and
> IPv6 (SRv6) data planes. SR-MPLS may also be transported over IP in UDP or
> GRE.
>
>
> These encapsulations are past WG last call (in IESG or RFC Editor).
>
>
> During the SPRING WG meeting at IETF 105, two presentations were related
> to the reduction of the size of the SID for IPv6 dataplane:
> ?         SRv6+ / CRH --
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-04<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dbonica-2Dspring-2Dsrv6-2Dplus-2D04&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=ackZC9evRf_LWYu2a-1NaGRDJKdxnE2ieIC4dD_FL6s&s=KUhAfjVsx_wK645uJk0FHzs2vxiAVr-CskMPAaEhEQQ&e=
> >
> ?         uSID --
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-01
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dfilsfils-2Dspring-2Dnet-2Dpgm-2Dextension-2Dsrv6-2Dusid-2D01&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=ackZC9evRf_LWYu2a-1NaGRDJKdxnE2ieIC4dD_FL6s&s=Aq1DK7fu73axZ1PXLIE8xnHE2AhTtNZy9LTHgWqx4CQ&e=
> >
>
>
> During the IETF week, two additional drafts have been proposed:
> ?
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-spring-compressed-srv6-np-00<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dli-2Dspring-2Dcompressed-2Dsrv6-2Dnp-2D00&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=ackZC9evRf_LWYu2a-1NaGRDJKdxnE2ieIC4dD_FL6s&s=XWUDAD2FMhWLfeT5sgUb1lgthJhugcyT98GJ2N-CrKs&e=
> >
> ?         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-03<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dmirsky-2D6man-2Dunified-2Did-2Dsr-2D03&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=ackZC9evRf_LWYu2a-1NaGRDJKdxnE2ieIC4dD_FL6s&s=gcbkHYxXm7FU7vblOB1vI58SDaaWf62pa7YvLmsP4nI&e=
> >
>
>
> As we expressed during the meeting, it is important for the WG to
> understand what the aims of additional encapsulations are. Thus, we think
> it is important that the WG should first get to a common understanding on
> the requirements for a new IPv6 data plane with a smaller SID - both from
> the perspective of operators that are looking to deploy these technologies,
> and from that of the software/hardware implementation.
>
>
> Therefore, we would like to solicit network operators interested in SR
> over the IPv6 data plane to briefly introduce their:
> ?         use case (e.g. Fast Reroute, explicit routing/TE)
> ?         forwarding performance and scaling requirements
> o    e.g., (number of nodes, network diameter, number of SID required in
> max and average). For the latter, if possible using both SRv6 128-bit SIDs
> and shorter (e.g. 32-bit) SIDs as the number would typically be different
> (*).
> ?         if the existing SRv6 approach is not deployable in their
> circumstances, details of the requirement of a different solution is
> required and whether this solution is needed for the short term only or for
> the long term.
>
>
> As well as deployment limitations, we would like the SPRING community to
> briefly describe the platform limitations that they are seeing which limit
> the deployment of SRv6  In particular limitations related to the number of
> SIDs which can be pushed and forwarded and how much the use of shorter SIDs
> would improve the deployments .
>
>
> For both of these sets of feedback if possible, please post this to the
> SPRING WG.. If the information cannot be shared publicly, please send it
> directly to the chairs & AD (Martin).
>
>
> This call for information will run for four weeks, up to 2019/09/03. As a
> reminder, you can reach the SPRING chairs via [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]> and ADs via [e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> -- Rob & Bruno
>
>
> (*) As expressed on the mailing list, a 128 bit SID can encode two
> instructions a node SID and an adjacency SID hence less SID may be required.
>
>
>
>