[spring] Discussion about SRv6 Midpoint Protection Mechanism Compliance with RFC8200
"Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com> Tue, 27 July 2021 12:34 UTC
Return-Path: <gengxuesong@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 663603A24C8; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 05:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hVEpMwfVoqat; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 05:34:11 -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 A65A13A24C5; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 05:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GYwwV2t3Fz6H7ls; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:24:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm100006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.196) by fraeml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:34:08 +0200
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) by dggpemm100006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.196) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:34:07 +0800
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.76]) by dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.76]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:34:06 +0800
From: "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com>
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
CC: "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Discussion about SRv6 Midpoint Protection Mechanism Compliance with RFC8200
Thread-Index: AdeC4xoDQIJ5RvpkTLO2J426H5eusA==
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:34:06 +0000
Message-ID: <2144efbd2c2c4559bfbc1f6e670dbc45@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.75.40]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2144efbd2c2c4559bfbc1f6e670dbc45huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/X067wYXYLK6RdlmIzQbQe2TuXQY>
Subject: [spring] Discussion about SRv6 Midpoint Protection Mechanism Compliance with RFC8200
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, 27 Jul 2021 12:34:15 -0000
Hi 6man, We have proposed an SRv6 local repair mechanism to provide endpoint protection. The document could be found in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection/ The basic idea is quite straight forward: when the node finds that the neighbor, which the packet is supposed to be forwarded to, is an endpoint and it has failed, the node will do the proxy forwarding, including: SL--, replace the DA with the segment of the next endpoint, and forward the packet based on the DA. Considering that the repair node which does the proxy forwarding could be a transit node, it is discussed in SPRING WG whether it violates RFC 8200; if it does, whether this behavior is allowed to provide local protection for endpoint. We would like to hear the voice from 6man about this topic. Looking forward to your comments. Best Xuesong
- [spring] Discussion about SRv6 Midpoint Protectio… Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [spring] Discussion about SRv6 Midpoint Prote… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] Discussion about SRv6 Midpoint Prote… Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)