Re: [spring] SRH scratch space (was Re: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 10 December 2019 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 12C4912018D for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:08:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 YQId46jZcWhZ for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2e]) (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 1BEF1120169 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com with SMTP id k10so3198144qve.7 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:08:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YoNmZXsPIHN+/l50HzUQFve1xsxOE/schZBShxFu654=; b=Bp0nsBJMOUcXW9LFXHIlGT8WfPTctW+AQCEvAnzT79JerOcdJBnFR8Td/DQcTU5kjf SVCJhvZ3GKraXrIIGwdu454fjaFBiNs6IfvVeAnsdvQ198XNjwxbVe3P+vxRA4y+yFjW Z2WvCndKS44wrSivSf4gWIz53W1ads1b71FBzlWSz9brnGEOfj/G/OgGuIwyJ/33IGLg kLrBKLvWCMm2+OLN6H0E42+If66/A7oQ/T/+QzMvhlYTSa4tyXLmwTUz1sb8FrocmudC D++CZerPe7+T26lEoxOwwBHdEFAWhbkEqgBX9DkXd7GfRa+praGj5XHj1P8Js8PZi8lV sbjg==
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; bh=YoNmZXsPIHN+/l50HzUQFve1xsxOE/schZBShxFu654=; b=N0uPtJZ5p+Qw7Eh2qGdcwns+HSPM3+XM1UjtI6RF2z7+wYuDfJFy2x+0PmdD/pet60 CoM6PP2ddYBSHiu2Cjg3kNewD1j5c8NKAngj244AbsCnEOShSNf5I1xpz+Jt7pgtjwjD 3rWLdeeTZIAyNr6cTwDqKn1aScblpqwJyJiznySlwurY/BqLUg+BLYD/hkF4TOupt8Ib mriBwJ3h6YTFZQfb1WWbpYR9+nhgYtqCXeCzfD1TBUqi5W54gNiFUA2OA6TwswA/oPyH vaQ+kRv2/o0O1P8QT13qAsEZYkNNeQMCdwqbUyXdmDq20SQDD/4gFEBWjIgn/9sPubyH mn5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX9qvn66vaYouQMbq4vHeKdNY5mIeOfJSuJtO8lcKJbc0PEq7ej /g70CzVfCvWNqyQnI0sjiV6zrtuv3/URmoBPTbU3sA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwMXlr/nnrrvyaaouvz6tMiL/Myl7NUA9sqpG1nit9wYQOyEQqqULApD6kkh5FBZJ15QPanYx4bYepD79wVq+s=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8a31:: with SMTP id 46mr31297082qvt.8.1576012106952; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:08:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <HK0PR03MB3970C6DCC635E7CD802D65FDFCBD0@HK0PR03MB3970.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB54636A2332FED916A26A6F14AEBD0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3e31873a-278a-2154-0e71-4d820bba323d@gont.com.ar> <4012D854-2F10-4476-951D-FFFE73C5083C@gmail.com> <cb2f56f8-acdc-d68d-0878-9609cb3d7b1b@gont.com.ar> <28214_1567694772_5D711FB4_28214_238_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFA9F3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <129bbb32-0f14-b799-430c-8f76fb6b1279@gont.com.ar> <1824_1575998223_5DEFD30F_1824_112_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D24EBD@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4384c08a-65f5-dbfb-85c7-8365feba9662@gmail.com> <CAOj+MME1+JXth8m4U_E5R6VLvurVR_y_DQvOBy7JmGxHZp7T=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriV8BFjOed_-QJYEZc_BANvEuc1hRgYjSdaVUYygVzPj+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHCA+=9zv_UJAF3gC6R1TWKb6LQJxaGsrRa0N7Amdxrww@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriWbz3Gf2UcNDigRVo8gEssdaL6HnH2_6Ln050gQFbFDYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGuParGLAA9_2n1zihGjJsKHr+NOK3EXP3j87ibXqmhmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriVdDSw4FOk5ApQq935H5aes5OBH=L=hhGD_6U0wGBCA0A@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2whpnfLfC0fJg58AK=QsZK4QNbAHb6E4H2hULkocUPNcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2whpnfLfC0fJg58AK=QsZK4QNbAHb6E4H2hULkocUPNcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:08:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGTkXETWP5EcYWsRkgCQ8y81EsH+rGwzfDTBYrJVxng3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc0a2b05995fe991"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/SiXCsZnfpM2XFSL3Xk-c16gVXBI>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRH scratch space (was Re: Question about SRv6 Insert function)
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:08:30 -0000

Well I take it as a joke ... as I am sure you are aware that SRH already
contains those verbatim.

PS.

Note that SRm6 would require a local mapping database to decipher those in
CRH.

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:02 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps we need to update RFC8200 and eliminate the source address field,
> or at least update it so that it can hold a multicast address, indicating
> the packet has multiple source devices.
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 07:54 Erik Kline, <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah right.
>>
>> Still, in terms of the things that could be relaxed in 8200, allowing the
>> SRH to be treated more like a Hop-by-Hop header might be more palatable
>> than things that change the effective MTU.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:42 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The issue is that RFC8200 forbids even modification to any EH unless the
>>> node is a destination node in top most IPv6 header.
>>>
>>>
>>> If there were no resolution to the insertion question vis a vis RFC
>>>> 8200, then would it then suffice to recommend that ingress nodes should
>>>> include some padding for these non-SR midpoints to play with (iff. the
>>>> network has such midpoints), and otherwise abide by RFC 8200?
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> spring@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>
>