Re: [spring] USD/USP question in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06.txt

"Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <> Wed, 18 December 2019 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02ABC1208DC for <>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:08:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTcGlBhrzLRN for <>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE3A1200DF for <>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:08:52 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: ac189297-0c9ff700000012ae-12-5df9de75e977
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id BC.4B.04782.57ED9FD5; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:08:21 +0800 (HKT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:08:20 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.007; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:08:20 +0800
From: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: USD/USP question in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06.txt
Thread-Index: AdWy4hb6WRZE2f3ZSWKmDwtbtf5+NACj/4sg
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:08:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d9df05ad8391437ab1a6b1e9ebfb6056nokiasbellcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprIIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXS/ts4T7f03s9YgwUd/BbHL/xmdGD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxoYZ05gKTq5grFh4ditzA+OjWYxdjJwcEgImEls+9rJ2MXJx CAkcYpLY13+UHcL5yygx9cgDNghnE6PEjQMLmUFa2ATcJCZt2wWU4OAQEVCXeHY0HCQsLBAi sffVWjYQW0QgVOLYm5nsELaRxMmmRUwgNouAqkTzz01gcV4BO4n2hfPBRgoB2R86OlhARnIK 2EusvskKEmYUEJP4fmoNWCuzgLjErSfzmSCOFpBYsuc8M4QtKvHy8T9WkFYJASWJvg1Q5akS Xx+dY4HYJChxcuYTlgmMIrOQTJqFpGwWkjKIuJbEvIbfUDWKElO6H7JD2JoSVyYfgrK1JZYt fM28gJF9FaN0cl5xRlZxbmaegbFeXn52ZqJucVJqTo5ecn7uJkZgRK2RmDR9B+OxA96HGAU4 GJV4eBvu/IwVYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMJ7uwMoxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iFGag0VJnLdl8sJY IYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimCwTB6dUA+O2iNqbW0sO35JISfz14HLIxD/7GbRM0pcurl2pU5py7PK9 9kU/Nn58E1wf2Fq2hymqyMgom3lK7b0PK/5eMT9jusmo92P28R6/EtmrprLqvrXOPKFPGgSu PF9zec8+B193H2HtJd3LjeX5mwMVq20DFeYXl3zPkp/h1C7VJKC47/7RVYW/nZRYijMSDbWY i4oTATJB1DakAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] USD/USP question in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:08:57 -0000

Hi SPRING WG and authors:

I need in further express my opinion about USD SID.
From the content in this last draft, I find lots of SIDs defined in draft, such as END.DX, END.DT, END.DX2 etc., which imply in fact that the next-header immediately following SRH being processed are upper-layer header such NH==41 or 4 (IPv4 or IPv6 or Ethernet frame), which is payload in sense. So if the 2 context assumption mentioned in previous email, “multi extension header may exist and no successive multi SRHs in one packet”, are removed, the behavior of SIDs mentioned above keep no change, because the 2 assumption has not effective for these SIDs. But regarding to END, END.X and END.T with USD, it may be impacted, because it is possible that there are other extension headers residing between SRH and upper-layer header,  as such, in order to decapsulate the outer header to expose inner packet (IPv4/6 or Ethernet), the SR-node has to handle all extension headers existing in this packet until reaching the upper-layer header within its pseudocode module, the function of processing all extension headers has been in normal IPv6 module, so I think it is not necessary for introducing USD, it is better to remove the USD definition.

I hope someone give reply on this question or point out where is my misunderstanding.


Wang Weibin

From: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
Sent: 2019年12月15日 10:09
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <>
Cc: '' <>
Subject: USD/USP question in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06.txt

Hi Pablo:

After the 2 context assumption in previous version of this draft,  “we assume that there is no other extension header than the SRH.”  and  “We assume
   that the SRH may be present multiple times inside each packet”, are removed in this last draft, I feel a bit confusion on USD SID, as well as combination of USD & USP.

First, within the content of this last draft, the word “Further on” marked red in the following pseudocode in section “4.16.3” is hard to understand if the packet being processed has other EH embed between SRH and Upper-layer header, such as AH or other EH, then the processing control of this packet will be passed to normal IPv6 module from current SRH processing module in SR-Node, so my question is : Can its control after completing AH processing (for example)  be back to SRH module (or call it pseudocode module) to proceed the next header like “upper-lay header type ==41 or 4”.
Or, if not, Did you created a new EH processing protocol stack instance in parallel to normal IPv6 module within the scope of SRH processing in SR-node.

4.16.3.  USD: Ultimate Segment Decapsulation

S02.   If (Segments Left == 0) {
   S03.      Skip the SRH processing and proceed to the next header
   S04.   }

Further on, the Upper-layer header processing of the End, End.X and
   End.T behaviors are modified as follows:

   S01. If (Upper-layer Header type == 41 || 4) {
   S02.    Remove the outer IPv6 Header with all its extension headers
   S03.    Submit the packet to the egress IP FIB lookup and
              transmission to the new destination
   S04. } Else {
   S05.    Send an ICMP Parameter Problem message to the Source Address
              Code 4 (SR Upper-layer Header Error),
              Pointer set to the offset of the upper-layer header.
              Interrupt packet processing and discard the packet.

   S06. }

From my understanding, the all processing action about specific SID must be completed successively. That is to say, upon USD, the upper-layer header (type 41 or 4) must be followed the SRH header being processed currently, or second SRH following the same rule (of course, the draft not considering 2 or more successive SRHs).

Second, the mixed SIDs function with combination of USD and USP (even PSP&USD&USP), I think, it is easy to understand when the two assumption above exist, but now I think it isn’t clear if you only provide the following sentence in this draft, i.e.  “if … else…” statement:
“An implementation that supports the USD flavor in conjunction with
   the USP flavor MAY optimize the packet processing by first looking
   whether the conditions for the USD flavor are met, in which case it
   can proceed with USD processing else do USP processing.”
This confusion is also described in my another mail. Of course, if the first question is addressed then this confusion does not exist.

By the way, is it really no different in text description before and after the two context assumption above removed?

Cheers !

WANG Weibin