Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Mon, 14 October 2019 14:12 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 069E112013A for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 rl0fnkMbTOjk for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 41377120058 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id n197so38153736iod.9 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
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=JUzVq7Ls7F4mvZlgnBkT4VE3au23VnNhfDZu/2M3coI=; b=BUOagidXxHBcVmQqlmDjFP9kHyUaYeq2fJOI/j2EnQEC/KjvCqmV8JvDZ0HidlL+cy qM6ftUGpjiCPQk7gMyM/awRvF+aWlOdv+C7gW4gGOiYas17Wpe+TlRI8NMm8df/YTOG3 8x71b9EgjH7J07JKDrFAy9ejkP9gk27gcmfNMIqT8Ftz2N8oSExUgZOdyRxqpXQC7JW/ NdJd24JUsbCk2VRREA0ftQtjByhbe0GHop12nE+WqW9NiT301AZuObnPbcjV4w4O8f75 tsEh65IEZBJkLn9uiOexTNPCEoLTo8pMEvC7zk9XSLqI/puHTeT87L/o7OOUa19FED/F 5o9A==
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=JUzVq7Ls7F4mvZlgnBkT4VE3au23VnNhfDZu/2M3coI=; b=hdTOKNDgP1i9IhWFQasWu4frHEnb+qNtc/WO+HesMTjxi2VR32JjekFTEp0ZNyo/WC SaqKN9CVWSNwwXv6LV6ZGfISi8DpI5/RCcC0HrAzJ1ffH5aLPvY0uSNNKVEAi2y0bJ0K yWnSaF0B6cDdH5PAVXSo1zHwWZbQ1q745xn1qLaoR7/gyEJ7S0EjvOXjYm3hqKhD0WoC Kh2Sq+kfCKt39otVEjFDzq6wYVUlaKoTi8EJo0Rsjb+nlodGoNzAV2BnhbQCt86Ac4kP kyywhGLEX0whCC2ODFMcgztSey+XeQR9J9Tx+tPK5X1RurZ8dpxYhSFQla9yCrx3pats amVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVZfZDWDqf6Lquj+tg8u0vWWUxK6l/FgSiCCvJbL3MKlRQDE+i6 q/olAMzSbfXhjdf70fjadVBYkccg6ivJV8y6jPw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx3+xZDO2A/6dP5+PaUzYu6eUZhSEHrOSS1oVkU6pB4Ji5OMa1hHAx7rM9hUla6eGSPlBN/qZtZrTrgTNttDgI=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:6a04:: with SMTP id f4mr671336ilc.205.1571062372151; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SN6PR05MB5710CBAF8E6DF307401A2166AE9D0@SN6PR05MB5710.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <f5eb739b-9ae4-433e-e6c0-8bcdb7bc575e@si6networks.com> <BYAPR05MB5703169601886283700608A5AE9F0@BYAPR05MB5703.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B6FE2A8B-B23B-4E9C-BB33-F6A5BD78C52B@gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB5699E5EA714CC64456771712AE940@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1076F074-EB35-4D38-9949-4A241C946E07@gmail.com> <1fce4e24590847348894d10ca8bd5816@nokia-sbell.com> <D3FE1CA3-A8D1-4392-8EEC-CDCC7FC0827F@gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB56993D1127A8CA9CCC0E4A9AAE970@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <213BB95D-0E06-4E9A-B552-2A2466DC42AF@gmail.com> <04711680-e9c4-1159-58af-609517ee8bdf@joelhalpern.com> <CABNhwV3SyZNY6GrJF+wpgTmpM6DSts4gXQgdFTEgWfN876u5WQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1Ym_AG7svmPUpmjGz600QyGRvtY5xNP0_K-hoGewUGTA@mail.gmail.com> <424b13a9a9bf4802b57c0609c92baad2@nokia-sbell.com> <BN7PR05MB569958ADB8E7BFF6C7EBC56AAE910@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHcTyCyO5Z3KyP5otW1Xgq7un2ypEGtjjWpr00j2t9dGw@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB5699B5C42BDBD5BF244CB4A8AE910@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MME70PYa7mkTRPKHqhg_1cMAvHLU0qZJx-=CjVy-ZKXpAA@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR05MB56999C4E2F2D8E045D47E3C1AE900@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5ae3ab05035f439db46fe5126b1476db@nokia-sbell.com>
In-Reply-To: <5ae3ab05035f439db46fe5126b1476db@nokia-sbell.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:12:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1DFaGdCjyKOCXVdMjZQK1R=diq4GeZqrR-_BMFHjcdvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009cb72a0594df76a2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/BhHDKG3G8q_NifebktXqfcgASZE>
Subject: Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs
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: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:12:57 -0000

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 1:45 AM Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <
weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com> wrote:

> Hi Ron:
>
>
>
> Make sense, If there is a dedicated IPv6 block for SRv6 SID within SRv6
> domain, then trouble situation you described does NOT occur, because the
> IPv6 address covered within SRv6 SID prefix does not be involved ICMPv6 ND
> protocol, because they are not configured under IP interfaces connected to
> “Link”.  I also think that the authors of NET-PGM draft have indicated that
> SRv6 SID has a separate IPv6 block in their Draft, but they don’t yet
> clearly stated which IPv6 block will be used for it.
>
>
>
>  [Gyan] I agree with what you are saying that if we allocate a separate
> /64 block GUA or ULA for SID for each node within the SR domain and that is
> separate from interface addressing ranges and is completely dedicated to
> SID.  So this would prevent any conflict with ND NS/NA processing.  Makes
> sense.  We are addressing the violation to the 6MAN RFC 8200 in draft below
> which was rewritten  and does look better with the addition of
> encapsulation but really need to provide an additional IPv6 encapsulation
> every time a EH is inserted "in flight" to be 100% compliant with the IPv6
> specification.   Since SRv6  ubiquitous in nature and can be used for any
> implementation where traffic engineering is necessary when you go
> inter-domain between administrative control it maybe difficult to enforce
> or have either the PSP & USP occur outside of the originating SRv6 domain
> that inserted the 1st EH header which the main use case that would be
> difficult is the "internet" use case.  If we cannot come up with a solution
> for that we would have to exclude the internet or any inter-domain SRv6
> implementations from using SRv6 from a standards track perspective.
>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion/


> --------------------------------------
>
> *Cheers !*
>
>
>
>
>
> *WANG Weibin  *
>
>
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Ron Bonica
> *Sent:* 2019年10月14日 9:23
> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
>
>
> Yeah, there were a few typos in my original message. What I meant to say
> was:
>
>
>
>    - If a /64 contains a SID, it MUST NOT contain any addresses that
>    represent interfaces.
>    - If a /64 contains an address that represents an interface, it MUST
>    NOT contain SIDs.
>
>
>
> If we don’t do this, we have to specify how nodes behave when they receive
> ICMPv6 NS messages in which the target is:
>
>
>
>    - A locally instantiated SID
>    - A SID learned from the IGP
>
>
>
>                                                                       Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 6:57 PM
> *To:* Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: IPv6 Addresses and SIDs
>
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>
> /64 prefix is a pile of addresses ... if someone would be to follow your
> suggestion I could not allocate some blocks of that prefix on R1, then some
> other blocks on R2 then yet more on my servers.
>
>
>
> You said:
>
>
>
> *“With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in
> RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either:*
>
>
>
>    - *Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or*
>    - *Be unassigned”*
>
>
>
> Maybe you meant to say something else:
>
>
>
> *“When a /64 is used as SRv6 locator prefix, if one /128 represents an
> IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either:*
>
>
>
>    - *Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or*
>    - *Be unassigned”*
>
> But then you sent this to SPRINT indicating that 6MAN should be the
> audience :).
>
>
>
> Best,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:45 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
>
>
> I’m having a hard time understanding exactly how I have violated the
> longest match principle. Could you provide:
>
>
>
>    - A pointer to a statement of the longest match principle
>    - A few words regarding how I have violated it
>
>
>
>                                                               Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 5:24 PM
> *To:* Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* IPv6 Addresses and SIDs
>
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>
> I disagree.
>
>
>
> Your suggestion violates longest prefix match principle in routing.
>
>
>
> It is huge waist of address space and is not specific to IPv6 at all.
>
>
>
> Let me describe the deployment case where your suggestion would cause it
> to break:
>
>
>
> I have /64 prefix where a few  /128s from that space I allocate to local
> interfaces making it a local v6 destinations on those nodes.
>
>
>
> However in the spirit of CIDR I still want to to use some blocks of that
> space - say  /126 or /124 as blocks which I only use to trigger local NAT
> as per rfc6296. And NAT does not require local address to be a destination
> address so it would be a big disservice to kill such deployment option.
>
>
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:59 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I think that we need a global rule that says:
>
>
>
> “With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC
> 4291, all /128 MUST either:
>
>
>
>    - Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or
>    - Be unassigned”
>
>
>
> The 6man WG will need to make such a statement since it owns RFC 4291.
>
>
>
>                                                              Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>


-- 

Gyan S. Mishra

IT Network Engineering & Technology

Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)

13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor

Silver Spring, MD 20904

United States

Phone: 301 502-1347

Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com

www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant