Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.
Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sat, 31 August 2019 08:45 UTC
Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 2C9991200F7 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 01:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 CobBQd4LH992 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 01:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com (mail-ot1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]) (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 8A2C51200C1 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 01:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id 97so6362405otr.4 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 01:45:16 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vp2j7emSpaOWq/TlYP5SeZti6B5XDY8VRtgMJGZLsHw=; b=oc3vItgRx72q/etkkQVeQeOAxGhY+q0Xie7OUdVzRn6WUjlDLnENm8bI+r6prxphF0 oQY0L3fqcBG9nyur0rl/9vyJbfu2avmqs1dPYnIYgac0NjSUNfeTgeEgHe5H4nge1AkO 1j4P5SrUpW1iDCMaWfJo5whYgZyQPvtyS1TygISrkqNWbyUEugq57v8e2bk6mUA1PpbZ etV22hIzP5gG0qzXfh3mxmiu8zU9fVWVAbh/YP6pxPlMuvO/YE1w+pozzfTfZ0NKuuoA 7GWkxnpXxN+HZXEKJURbD35PCRYrbSEH6ZAMFelfwHaWeV6/KPVEu6G2IYDoxbB7U9qG wKJw==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vp2j7emSpaOWq/TlYP5SeZti6B5XDY8VRtgMJGZLsHw=; b=kQr8xXVFFEiFqyLwImM//4Z5Xq0PEfn9ncjry9j53UtOsFAwVPcNzlwLRjCpa5P556 gcjSxcSW99uTQ3d2FAzx1GRYNrLSTSbuSE4jMuSt9V1iXI/8kk+DyYM+3xDAgQxTk+Aj TZL/JVwvwM5y2ujqkpsW5NcvZpDXHKGYlM8c6pAHI7DQgpG5glCoDe2nKkpTP/xgZJ/z YYRZPK0UQrHTTBFyvTRdIlofePozBP+ZT+6jDq1Q4Szu3orUbKh8uCCAg3kBJz+Rnzvc F8qZpEPHlyEE19fHXkBPZ+aIZjAqmtJ5Wmy1ojGIbQJPHUeYehVEPWBF+LaZck/QpaFb k4Ng==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUjl3JKZ3m+zkd2u+QHCw+eYRNdURYaRXaKonNgm61DWguBFImJ u0J/Xr2WzRd4B/E2RCxFljA/GAgCx4ia0kk4BfE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqybvlzownbotY1LfOeezWpPUDDpyvLUm1kGTERZH6xSug16VHSo8ZDsRDEIk2nX/xyJlvZS7IlsGJXd890StCY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7a5a:: with SMTP id z26mr14658601otm.348.1567241115716; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 01:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHd-QWtA21+2Sm616Fnw0D-eB7SNb_BeG8-A-MCLLFgTwSpOsg@mail.gmail.com> <53E6C388-6DF1-42CF-A97D-98D248AB6CED@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53E6C388-6DF1-42CF-A97D-98D248AB6CED@cisco.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 18:44:49 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xUVn5fPf=rtp5bVRJxJKQfGT0zf8cDiN-y=cVBwu-Djw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Cc: Rob Shakir <robjs=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Gsr-nJqzhyYIrj8mG6p3KZ_HZ5E>
Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.
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: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 08:45:18 -0000
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 14:05, Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com> wrote: > > Dear Chairs and the WG: > > > > The SRv6 network programming solution and its SRH encapsulation is implemented on 12 hardware platforms including Merchant Silicon. > > Multiple providers have deployed the SRv6 network programming solution and its SRH encapsulation with line-rate performance carrying a significant amount of commercial traffic. > > Several independent interoperability reports documenting successful interoperability of implementation from multiple vendors exist. > > Implementation, deployment, and interoperability status is publicly documented in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01.txt. > > > > Most use-cases are expected to use very few SRv6 segments. > > > > In some specific use-cases, one may desire to optimize the MTU usage further. > > The SRv6 network programming solution and its SRH encapsulation also support for this Optimization, through the uSID network instruction. > > If I understand it correctly, the idea is that uSIDs are encoded in the remaining bits of an IPv6 destination addresses, below a single high order aggregate prefix? If that is the case, then I think there are a number of issues with this proposal. Firstly, there are defined fields below the upper aggregate prefix for all IPv6 address formats. They are not available for arbitrary use. For the Link-Local Address, the bits between /10 and /64 are specified to be set to zero. The ULA prefix defines a fields up until /64. The most important one is the 40 bit Global ID field, between /8 and /48, which is required to be pseudo-random to attempt to avoid address space collision when two ULA domains are merged. A shorter than /48 ULA prefix impacts this important property. For both Global Unicast Addresses and ULA addresses, the bits between /48 and /64 are designated the Subnet ID field. Below that, for GUA, ULA and LLA, the following and lower 64 bits of an IPv6 address is the 64 bit Interface Identifier (IID) field. RFC 7136, "Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers", removed requirement for the IID field to have a modified EUI-64 value, allowing that field to be treated as an opaque 64 bit quantity generally, and to allow end-hosts or protocols to place significance on bits within the IID field if they chose to. So I think uSIDs could only be legitimately placed in the lower 64 bit IID field. There are however reserved IID values, so any combination of uSID values would not be able to result in any of these reserved IID values. "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-interface-ids/ipv6-interface-ids.xhtml For all these above IPv6 address format details, and others, see RFCs 4291 (GUA, LL) and 4193 (ULA). Regards, Mark. > > I do not see the need for any new encapsulation work. > > > > Thanks > > > > Regards … Zafar > > > > From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Rob Shakir <robjs=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > Date: Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 5:04 PM > To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org> > 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 > > > uSID -- > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-01 > > > > > During the IETF week, two additional drafts have been proposed: > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-spring-compressed-srv6-np-00 > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-03 > > > > > 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 > > > > 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 spring-chairs@ietf.org and ADs via spring-ads@ietf.org. > > > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
- [spring] Beyond SRv6. Rob Shakir
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Rob Shakir
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Yuji Kamite
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Sébastien Parisot
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Dirk Steinberg
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Nick Hilliard
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. James Guichard
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Nick Hilliard
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Voyer, Daniel
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Nick Hilliard
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andrew Alston
- [spring] 答复: Beyond SRv6. Lizhenbin
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. li zhenqiang
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Kamran Raza (skraza)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Parag Kaneriya
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Tarek Saad
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Srihari Sangli
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Nick Hilliard
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Reji Thomas
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. sthaug
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Srihari Sangli
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Tarek Saad
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Srihari Sangli
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ca By
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Gyan Mishra
- [spring] 答复: Beyond SRv6.(CCDR Proposal) Aijun Wang
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. 松嶋聡
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Dirk Steinberg
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Andy Smith (andsmit)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. =?utf-8?B?SGlyb2Z1bWkgSWNoaWhhcmE=?=
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. =?utf-8?B?SGlyb2Z1bWkgSWNoaWhhcmE=?=
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Xiejingrong
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Xiejingrong
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Stewart Bryant
- [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Dirk Steinberg
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Fred Baker
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Srihari Sangli
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Reji Thomas
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Reji Thomas
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9CSRV6+=E2=80=9D_?=… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding Gyan Mishra