Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 06 May 2019 01:10 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 9C762120122 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 RQwq1vS_F65J for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (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 96C5412008C for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id a64so1111090qkg.5 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 May 2019 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZO4XFGN28fsnGdMik4fiwN6TBCwE+jtZ8SWsYzBpKvs=; b=CfopUzx8emmshtkm7R+ozBHqoqWoXp6N+VIBnHv/o+uSkyFfg67zgxy8g/Zjm1gB7V ONl0UD7j6+HjjJFplfqYPg+1s6jF1T8N9tbWel6Hdgn8N2I5JfdMvWZuDYZKeKs4QE6G /7+8l4Z918HxQQyq+J/P8ZnEuU9HKxiaO6hrqkcRYYfs5p15W5om+LiWRR4HDJbrs/LE sTL4N6X8Huw1GjRBdwaC/F7lOP1PEO253Zlw5nJI4z6pmKZB4qRl/HOqwA2tzhRHhXob a9R3GIIAXSpVJpZmNSxYAy8SLhFAgYzPfDlcK2dJYVMr0Xnk9bhQlkmcpfhCmSpBhMec 3+cQ==
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=ZO4XFGN28fsnGdMik4fiwN6TBCwE+jtZ8SWsYzBpKvs=; b=jzqv1tEWT7co1KIeXG8Gs0qGKn3Nk+lrtyF4Co36sHNfVBf+6ZxKzYxSfh3fnXCsI4 +WjnxbmAPTmhkB++oSRCNXTdCtvbHaGnQY9KQy+VoBOSsu+oROgh0v1vi6/85hNJRlDI w5ekPZJan750wtURLKLD7hfWOLNb+hd+RBG0J83HIMQ2sH1OgPCGE6K2FE0hcqHu0rFs +wVIYXRf/dwHtA2wYUg591UCv7DV/QAUVg/c45V4rGuo1AJQZ1XS209DsVsvP/6B8H/5 KfvWtvU+Lu85hEIOjbcT+XsrKcV7aBkfEKkLzvEcCM551Xw8StVZDREosaVCUPVFbq/n pCvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVbxSZkewdiDhoo1ZhB9WKjykp97jzkPYkND0NDgKmpoqiPTUBR qTk6sInyQ5iui0IIAvDbOJ8w00Z6SE20LM/UwB6iqw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwL7HUq/YIyL6wTB4bacId/88FIipS9jibr5YjIHrkdPqbBj7HC7ib6Pie6mp07Aq1NT7ENW/18608K9qSsdkI=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:66c7:: with SMTP id a190mr7309442qkc.44.1557105054569; Sun, 05 May 2019 18:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR05MB4245988C3A47C3665BD91172AE300@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB4245988C3A47C3665BD91172AE300@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 18:10:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S358r54Z7U_GM88PnTDmd503BAjE6-ff9CDpjyAY4Cq_sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a7e78a05882dc54f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/FqnSc4kVOZbhW-SvLPoMssvtQtA>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
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, 06 May 2019 01:10:57 -0000

On Sun, May 5, 2019, 5:47 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> According to Section 4.4 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-00,
> when processing the End.DX2 SID, the Next Header must be equal to 59.
> Otherwise, the packet will be dropped.
>
> In the words of the draft, "We conveniently reuse the next-header value 59
> allocated to IPv6 No Next Header [RFC8200].  When the SID corresponds to
> function End.DX2 and the Next-Header value is 59, we know that an Ethernet
> frame is in the payload without any further header."
>
> According to Section 4.7 RFC 8200, " The value 59 in the Next Header field
> of an IPv6 header or any  extension header indicates that there is nothing
> following that header.  If the Payload Length field of the IPv6 header
> indicates the presence of octets past the end of a header whose Next Header
> field contains 59, those octets must be ignored and passed on unchanged if
> the packet is forwarded."
>
> Does the WG think that it is a good idea to reuse the Next Header value
> 59? Or would it be better to allocate a new Next Header value that
> represents Ethernet?
>

Tom,

There's already ETHERIP number (97). Why not use that?

Tom


>                                                           Ron
>
>
> Juniper Internal
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>