Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

What I asked for, and I believe Suresh plans for, is to note that not 
using the reserved block complicates the filtering for ingress and 
egress.   I do not expect this document to discuss what other methods of 
filtering could be applied.

Yours,

Joel

On 10/10/2022 11:40 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > that domains using SRH filter it at ingress and egress edges.
>
> *it* is a key here.
>
> If document says (as I presume Suresh explained) that such ingress 
> filtering will be based on destination address of the packets being 
> the new SRv6 prefix or any other infra address of the AS - all is 
> legal and great.
>
> But you keep stating that filtering can also happen based on presence 
> of SRH alone - irrespective of the destination address of the packet. 
> That is something I have hard time to agree with.
>
> Best,
> R.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 5:35 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     There appear to be two separate issues, only one of which affects
>     this
>     document.
>
>     The issue that affects this document is that the SRH document
>     explicitly
>     requires that domains using SRH filter it at ingress and egress
>     edges.
>     That is what is relevant for the document at hand.  And while some
>     folks
>     have envisioned use cases that violate that, the RFC is clear that
>     it is
>     prohibited.  (My reading is that this also applies to SRv6 in
>     general,
>     even when compressed SIDs with no SRH are used.)
>
>     The question of whether, in doing enforcing that requirement a domain
>     may filter more packets that should not be received is about how the
>     operator chooses to enforce the requirement.  We are not
>     specifying how
>     the operator does the enforcement.
>
>     The question of what transit domains are permitted to do is one that
>     reasonable people appear to be able to differ on.  But it is not a
>     relevant question for this draft.
>
>     Yours,
>
>     Joel
>
>     On 10/10/2022 10:31 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>     > Joel,
>     >
>     >> On 10 Oct 2022, at 15:36, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Eric, you seem to be objecting to something I did not say.  I
>     have not asked, and do not expect, for the document to mandate or
>     even suggest that arbitrary domains should drop packets with SRH. 
>     I will note that given that SRH is explicitly for limited domains,
>     an operator who chooses to drop such packets is well within his
>     rights.  And I am told there are such operators.  But that is not
>     what I asked for this document.
>     > No, that would violate rfc8200.
>     >
>     > O.
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>