Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.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 1C7C2120820; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:37:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 fpTclD6_8j7k; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77B17120273; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by opfedar27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 47Y5Jh64wwz2xbk; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:37:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.98]) by opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 47Y5Jh50n5zCqkN; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:37:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b846:2467:1591:5d9d]) by OPEXCAUBM7F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:37:40 +0100
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
CC: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>, 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Thread-Index: AQHVr6/gu47LULL9/kmX/JINTbJfCqe1OpUQ
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:37:39 +0000
Message-ID: <16536_1576089460_5DF13774_16536_366_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D273AD@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <6c674995-8cc7-c024-4181-60b160910f75@si6networks.com> <29345_1576001884_5DEFE15C_29345_229_5_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D250B7@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <89402a30-129b-314f-90f1-ba6efcdd6a88@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <89402a30-129b-314f-90f1-ba6efcdd6a88@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/EM2Fvo2mcZPBnrdwfRfUW07LsXs>
Subject: Re: [spring] 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: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:37:45 -0000

Fernando,

> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:16 AM
> 
> Bruno,
> 
> On 10/12/19 13:18, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> > Fernando,
> > 
> > Thank you for spelling out your comment, plus on the WGLC thread.
> > More in-line
> > 
> >> Bruno,
> >>
> >> On 5/12/19 12:15, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> >> [....]>
> >>> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
> >>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version,
> >>> and send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>> You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not
> >>> duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are
> >>> only spring specifics.
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated
> >>> on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.
> >>>
> >>> This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point and
> >>> that other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted into
> >>> parallel independent discussions)
> >>
> >> Penultimate Segment Popping describes/specifies the removal of a SRH at
> >> a place other than the final destination of the packet.
> >>
> >> Such behavior violates RFC8200, which specifies:
> >>
> >    > Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not
> >    > processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery
> >    > path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes,
> >    > in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field
> >    > of the IPv6 header.
> >>
> >> Note, of course, that the reference of "Destination Address" in RFC8200
> >> is clearly the final destination of the packet -- for instance, RFC8200
> > 
> > I hear and can understand your reading of RFC8200.
> 
> Could you please check RFC8200, and tell me what other possible
> interpretation of "Destination Address" you might have, in the context
> of RFC8200.

Another interpretation is
"the node [...] identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header."
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8200#section-4

 Actually, that's verbatim the text from RFC 8200.


> RFC8200 does not even specify any routing header types. SO...where's the
> ambiguity?

- Read the mailing list and you will see that everyone do not share your opinion. So at least one person is wrong. I think that it would help if everyone, including you, could consider that they/you _may_ be wrong, at least to better understand the comments been made by others.  And possibly the text from RFC 8200 is not clear, but this is what we have. And this is the text to use to support the claim that this text is violated.
- Why have _you_ filled an errata against RFC 8200, in order to change the technical content of this section, if you don't agree that one may red " Destination Address field of the IPv6 header" as the IPv6 address present in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header been received by the End node (or even sent by the source node)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5933

> > At minimum, I think that we can agree that there is another reading, as expressed by other WG participants, and hence I disagree with "of course".
> 
> No, I argue that there is not.IN fact, I argue that folks have been
> following that strategy for way too long, and that's quite frustrating.
> 
> 
> 
> > Personally, I understand "Destination Address" as "Destination Address field of the IPv6 header." as indicated explicitly in the text quoted.
> 
> The quoted text is from RFC8200. In the context of RFC8200 the
> Destination Address can only contain the ultimate destination of the
> packet. Where's the ambiguity?
> 
> And let me ask you, as chair, another question, that will lead you to
> the same place: is IPv6 and end to end protocol?

That's not a question for a spring chair to answer.
I'm reading the sentence in RFC8200. If we can't agree on the meaning of this explicit sentence, I don't think that discussing philosophical r religious question is going to help.

> The fact that I may claim that RFC8200 contains a receipe for BBQ does
> not actually mean that that's the case.

You do realize that your above sentence also applies to yourself? So how is this helping to progress?
Can we please focus on the RFC8200 sentence?  I'm really trying to understand your point. 
Let's stick to the texts of documents.
 

> 
> > I'm fine with having this clarified with 6MAND chairs and AD. That been said, the Internet AD would have an opportunity to DISCUSS this.
> 
> For the record, I think this is a major issue that should be cleared
> before it can be claimed that there is consensus to request publication
> of this document.

OK, this is recorded. 
> 
> 
> > 
> >> does not specify any routing header type, and hence the meaning is
> >> unambiguous (there's no destination other than the final destination of
> >> the packet).
> >>
> >> This is of course in line with IPv6 being and end-to-end protocol, and
> >> crucial for other related mechanisms to work as expected (such as IPsec
> >> AH). Please also check: draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful.
> >>
> >> So, in order to proceed with the document, there are multiple options
> >> forward:
> >>
> >> 1) Just remove the corresponding text/behavior
> > 
> > That is indeed one option. But as of today, this is not my assumption.
> >  
> >> 2) Implement a similar mechanism in an RFC8200-compliant manner (e.g.,
> >> re-encap)
> > 
> > SRH insert is out of scope of this specification. So yes, IPv6 encaps is used.
> > We are talking SRH removal. I'm assuming that you are referring to PSP. My understanding is that this function (PSP) is to distribute the (forwarding plane) load between the PSP and the USP. In a way similar to MPLS PHP. But in all cases, this is not about SRH insertion.
> 
> It's about SRH removal, which is also forbiden by RFC8200.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> 3) Do the necessary standards work to update RFC8200, such that it
> >> allows this sort of behavior, and only ship the network-programming
> >> draft for publication when at least 6man has consensus to proceed on
> >> that path.
> > 
> > Not the preferred path as of today.
> 
> Yes, it should be evident that it seems the preferred path has been
> (starting with EH insertion at the time) to circumvent existing
> specifications.
> 
> 
> 
> >  
> >> P.S.: I will go through the document once again... but the same
> >> reasoning should be applied to any EH-insertion/removal at a place other
> >> than the source of the packet or its final destination.
> > 
> > It looks to me that SRH insertion and SRH removal are to be treated differently. 
> 
> I don't see how or why. 

SRH insertion is done by a node, on the path, which is not the destination of the IPv6 addresses.
SRH removal is done by a node which is receiving the packet because it's IPv6 address is in the destination of the IPv6 packet.

> Both violate the same requirement in RFC8200.

We are not having a conversation, so let's not repeats the same point again and again.

Your opinion has been noted. So does opinions on this same point expressed by other wg participants.

>
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.