Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com> Thu, 04 April 2024 19:04 UTC
Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.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 5174EC23D89D for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HWELlPMyRxo6 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2900C14CE53 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4V9WDX3THlz67Q1X for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 03:01:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml500006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.161.198]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEEAF140C98 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 03:02:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm100008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.125) by lhrpeml500006.china.huawei.com (7.191.161.198) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 20:02:35 +0100
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.56) by dggpemm100008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.125) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 03:02:33 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) by dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 03:02:33 +0800
From: Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "Martin Vigoureux (Nokia)" <martin.vigoureux=40nokia.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
Thread-Index: AQHagQhlZux59x3OskKuiL5kxiLe6LFWgSKAgAANLgCAAAGYAIAAA7wAgAFmOICAAIe8IA==
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 19:02:33 +0000
Message-ID: <976467759ac44fe7862c52ffa466a533@huawei.com>
References: <CAMMESsyCYJwWP48=a9RWx3n8txS1eR4VLnUeE++VEdHKFeKOjw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMH9-F0nWG6zDZXxAGOQ7T8T9bUn74f4o=Fh2p0zah86Gg@mail.gmail.com> <e50b6a1b-08ae-4c8c-b3f0-0900fe8a9158@joelhalpern.com> <CAOj+MME5yL2S9Y8woVhLpkx8Xjq8g1+Ngw0RjH7o5u82p-38yg@mail.gmail.com> <71b6f07e-08d6-40a0-9436-e4acebf96c3b@joelhalpern.com> <a038845c-5a6e-4466-81f1-924df32e2ec9@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <a038845c-5a6e-4466-81f1-924df32e2ec9@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.221.205.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/O1bi1lDb8y304rygqw6qMyboIBE>
Subject: Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 19:04:19 -0000
Thank you Martin for your insight. That is my understanding as well. I think this is quite clear actually. Thanks, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 8:51 PM To: spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression) Hi, in my view, this draft doesn't *change* the text of 8200. It provides information on how to determine the DA when C-SIDs are used. -m Le 2024-04-03 à 23:28, Joel Halpern a écrit : > > CAUTION:This is an external email. Please be very careful when > clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for > additional information. > > The concern with regard to the text that the chairs are asking about > is not about intermediate nodes verifying the checksum. The text does > not talk aabout that, so we are not asking about that. > > But, the text in 8200 specifies how the originating node is to compute > the upper layer checksum. It doesn't say "do whatever you need to do > to make the destination come out right". It provides specific > instructions. Yes, it is understandable that those instructions do > not cover the compressed container cases. Which is why the > compression document specifies changes to those procedures. > > Thus, we need to ask 6man how they want to handle the change in the > instructions in 8200. > > the question we are asking SPRING is whether there is any > clarification people want to the text in the compression draft before > we send the question over to 6man. > > Yours, > > Joel > > On 4/3/2024 5:15 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> >> My interpretation of text from RFC8200 is that it allows discrepancy >> between the header and the upper layer checksum as long as final >> packet's destination sees the correct one. >> >> The last condition is met. >> >> So I see no issue. >> >> Sure RFC8200 does not talk about SRH nor cSIDs, but provides a hint >> on how to handle such future situations. >> >> With that being said I would like to still understand what real >> problem are we hitting here ... >> >> Kind regards, >> Robert >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:09 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: >> >> There are two cases covered in section 6.5 of the compression >> draft that appear to be at variance with secton 8.1 of RFC 8200. >> >> First, if the final destination in the routing header is a >> compressed container, then the ultimate destination address will >> not be the same as the final destination shown in the routing header. >> >> Second, if a uSID container is used as the destination address and >> no SRH is present, then in addition to the above problem there is >> no routing header to trigger the behavior described. >> >> Yours, >> >> Joel >> >> On 4/3/2024 4:22 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >>> Hi Alvaro, >>> >>> Section 6.5 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression >>> describes the >>> behavior when an originating node inside an SRv6 domain creates a >>> packet with a C-SID as the final destination. _This >>> description differs >>> from the text in Section 8.1 of RFC8200._ >>> >>> >>> I would like you to clarify the above statement - specifically of >>> the last sentence. >>> >>> Reason for this that after looking at both drafts I find section >>> 6.5 of the subject draft to be exactly in line with RFC8200 >>> section 8.1 especially with the paragraf which says: >>> >>> * If the IPv6 packet contains a Routing header, the >>> Destination >>> Address used in the pseudo-header is that of the final >>> destination. At the originating node, that address will >>> be in >>> the last element of the Routing header; at the recipient(s), >>> that address will be in the Destination Address field of the >>> IPv6 header. >>> * >>> >>> So before we dive into solutions (as Andrew has already provided >>> a few of) I think we should first agree on what precise problem >>> are we solving here ? >>> >>> Many thx, >>> Robert >>> >>> PS. As a side note I spoke with my hardware folks - just to check >>> if validation of upper-layer checksum is even an option for >>> transit nodes. The answer is NO as most data plane hardware can >>> read at most 256 bytes of packets. So unless there is some >>> specialized hardware processing up to 9K packets in hardware at >>> line rates this entire discussion about checksum violations, >>> fears of firing appeals is just smoke. >>> > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
- [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Francois Clad
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Francois Clad
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Francois Clad
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Francois Clad
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… jmh.direct
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Cheng Li
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Martin Vigoureux (Nokia)
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Cheng Li
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Antoine FRESSANCOURT
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Martin Vigoureux (Nokia)
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Francois Clad
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Francois Clad
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Francois Clad
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Boris Hassanov
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: C-SIDs and upper … Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: C-SIDs and upper … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Francois Clad
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… liu.yao71
- Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: C-SIDs and upper … Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… linchangwang
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… liu.yao71
- Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dr… 梁艳荣