[spring] Re: [IPv6]C-SIDs and Upper-Layer Checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 
I think this text is good to me.
It is aligned w/ RFC8200, nothing is needed.
Using C-SID as the text specified doesn't modify the IPv6 dataplane.
Thanks.
B.R.

Zhu Yongqing 
China Telecom

From: Alvaro Retana
Date: 2024-06-03 20:00
To: 6man
CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 6man Chairs; [e-mail]; SPRING WG List
Subject: [IPv6]C-SIDs and Upper-Layer Checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
Dear 6man WG:  

As you may be aware, the spring WG is in the process of advancing  
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression [1]. The WGLC discussions have  
resulted in the need to ask you the following questions (see below)  
related to the use/operation of compressed SIDs (C-SIDs).  

Please provide any opinions by June 14, 2024. 

Thanks! 

spring-chairs 



§6.5 (Upper-Layer Checksums) explains how to calculate the Upper-Layer  
Checksum in the presence of C-SIDs. §9.3 (Upper Layer Checksum  
Considerations) discusses the related operational considerations.   
For convenience, both sections are reproduced here: 

===== ===== draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-17 ===== ===== 

6.5. Upper-Layer Checksums 

   The Destination Address used in the IPv6 pseudo-header (Section 8.1  
   of [RFC8200]) is that of the ultimate destination. 

   At the SR source node, that address will be the Destination Address  
   as it is expected to be received by the ultimate destination. When  
   the last element in the compressed SID list is a C-SID container,  
   this address can be obtained from the last element in the  
   uncompressed SID list or by repeatedly applying the segment behavior  
   as described in Section 9.2. This applies regardless of whether an  
   SRH is present in the IPv6 packet or omitted. 

   At the ultimate destination(s), that address will be in the  
   Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. 

... 

9.3. Upper Layer Checksum Considerations 

   Upper layer checksums are computed by the originator of an IPv6  
   packet and verified by the ultimate destination(s) as it processes  
   the upper layer protocol. 

   As specified in Section 6.5, SR source nodes originating TCP/UDP  
   packets ensure that the upper layer checksum is correctly calculated  
   based on the ultimate destination of the session, which may be  
   different from the address placed in the IPv6 destination address.  
   Such SR source nodes leveraging TCP/UDP offload engines may require  
   enhancements to convey the ultimate destination address. These  
   implementation enhancements are outside the scope of this document. 

   It was reported that some network node implementations, including  
   middleboxes such as packet sniffers and one software router  
   implementation, may attempt to verify the upper layer checksum of  
   transit IPv6 packets. These nodes, if deployed inside the SR domain,  
   may fail to verify the upper layer checksum of transit SRv6 traffic,  
   possibly resulting in dropped packets or in the inability to carry  
   out their function. Making these implementations SRv6 aware in  
   general or C-SID aware in particular is out of the scope of this  
   document. 

===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== 


Is this text aligned with §8.1/rfc8200 (Upper-Layer Checksums) [2]?  
Does anything need to be added, deleted, changed, or clarified?   

Is using C-SIDs in the above scenarios (§9.3) compatible with IPv6  
transit node deployments compliant with rfc8200? 

Does using C-SIDs as specified above represent a modification to the  
IPv6 dataplane? If so, is the modification considered acceptable to  
the WG? 


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression  

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#autoid-17