Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)
Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 11 April 2024 23:10 UTC
Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 145F6C14F70C; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.998, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, 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=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 PeNXXUEsExxY; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DADEFC14F705; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56e6acb39d4so331601a12.1; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712877044; x=1713481844; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6wsBvsc5aT4/iwcL2lG92fJBbXrRWvowPMWDzgvbOeo=; b=Ev53VrGaNN7SCvPOMYQMfTYNrJIB9wdTPY6+BYjI1w6SQ2iOOPbaVfieSCZFxwXFFK GRD/aCwA/w1HYcqIkhXoEfGlU1qBQfFPLDDFKPErpzkA5rpKLR9tKXMzy0wUJMXwhCnF m5QUtD027UKwtRzPJfsZuR0hoR3LWj2RM8hjqf+UO+4kZ1nxg+Xtd76ooYRjaWvNdH3y Gy5QIPtjTnrBgUikgvKKI12yAap1U0USH0Ogxy664jQsfGyUT6W+O+04gu0Ue4lzokQz aBpKMG9VGgy80bds3CoO4Y6TkCkiHCYlHzySKbq7zPJ9D7albCBLRsEMK9Zy4FcpzkyF pg5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712877044; x=1713481844; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=6wsBvsc5aT4/iwcL2lG92fJBbXrRWvowPMWDzgvbOeo=; b=jOO234hY053Q12hmPw1IWf1vsmBPMhYgHyGHKjkkIoyLNcENZvKLNfKKI3U2iBRY9z nwPg4/cuU0SVxe//FOQxNGJ/O2TdiqNbMWKj7bH+eFigUDB5FAPe7mbcs2TL7Vcy3ZJZ hX5oqv5vGHOCo6HN6ym7sV2q6P93bj2Zhlgh57CwtMX1xARRxY8othRnjyPpaJJmg2yK zFaJTaWtGvkXPSjb7L6/AE1ng9+aB1l5DZzUgB/UhcIEZy7F6tTcOxbmDpJ4PJvc4LjU VBYf6e4YmgMNS4NXaiMoFsuyNeRUYFVkFBfm8Cf43MPfQXR71j9JL3HyXffKRzy+5xeV 0cFw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVU5x3ORWCUUa3NgnuNxiv8CiTXndQ5pQeZW9J9Cyvp2iS95Yiav2Nrz+RPGRgoVwd3FF+I+CW1Xz0edQnb/nz+0dSTBIlYcQJdK8Ga/ufTt8gnHJxOk80=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxW8SbEdlNAGHIjsxbSYrkaPwOZowPsgF9YhcUtlTDQoW+GaTgz UE13PRDzk4ooVj7aFePPn4fTqc9cAm8X0m6+YZVVyOS1usEbzHf1yNV5gsl/H2I2J/a/mYHNTCU kGND/HYmzn+qyk0l0D0To71S2Iul4tw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGQtmlNPTV5MrTJgzk744xu1zs3pJqmW6hTsZe0OjbVMofOCafryk2YaAYI7qwsCvHT9vYFZnmUdSn1EIADSKo=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:cdc2:0:b0:56e:bad:36b with SMTP id h2-20020a50cdc2000000b0056e0bad036bmr640374edj.21.1712877043594; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMESsyCYJwWP48=a9RWx3n8txS1eR4VLnUeE++VEdHKFeKOjw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6gdPxHQY_fGWXWt6W9W=+QFr882NdGHESsf-qohiquVs-Frg@mail.gmail.com> <114579709.4041173.1712594638924@mail.yahoo.com> <MN2PR04MB5981C6BBA2A275F03BD6EDF3AF052@MN2PR04MB5981.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR04MB5981C6BBA2A275F03BD6EDF3AF052@MN2PR04MB5981.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:10:31 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zNzEMD=d59tqxCUTaTUAoiNeYbNwsKxpUvUuu16rzs8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah=40ciena.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Boris Hassanov <bhassanov=40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, spring-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ba3fa20615da437a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ceI4CgdBsDjF7X2QOfGRPXe_dvU>
Subject: Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: 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, 11 Apr 2024 23:10:50 -0000
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, 07:54 Shah, Himanshu, <hshah=40ciena.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > All – > > I agree with Ketan/Boris and the points they have made (no need to repeat > them again). > > In general, srh-compression technology has been accepted, implemented and > deployed by many vendors and service providers. > > The issue of some legacy nodes not being able to ascertain final > destination and conducting and failing upper layer checksum verification > > does not seem to have been widely reported, which is not to claim as not > legit, but to support the argument that it is not wide > > spread but perhaps not significant enough to prevent the adoption of this > technology. > > > > It might be adequate enough to add ‘apology’ section to acknowledge such > limitation, in order to progress the adoption of this document. > > I believe there is a precedence – section 7 of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr/. > Experimental. > > > Thanks, > > Himanshu > > > > > > *From: *spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Boris Hassanov > <bhassanov=40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Monday, April 8, 2024 at 12:44 PM > *To: *Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> > *Cc: *SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, spring-chairs@ietf.org < > spring-chairs@ietf.org> > *Subject: *[**EXTERNAL**] Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums > (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression) > > Hi Alvaro and all, > > > > I re-read section 6.5, it seems to be clear enough IMO, it also has link > towards section 9.2 (ICMP Error processing). > > I do agree with Ketan's email about the methodology for splitting all > nodes into those 3 categories (Source, Transit, Destination). Indeed > those concerns were about some transit nodes (especially legacy, > Special Transit Node as Ketan said) which may experience issues with upper > layer checksums and they also cannot deliver the behavior per section 9.2. > I have discussed such potential issue with some colleagues and they told > that for modern applications there such as eBPF based it is not an issue at > all to make correct checksum handling. I also found some public references > for that such as: https://github.com/facebookincubator/katran/tree/main > [github.com] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/facebookincubator/katran/tree/main__;!!OSsGDw!NigVX2MITPjUv5es_hCerGiVQWYxbzo2f0c9dlpVV4Q41fSk37U--WWnWdpgNM6asmUyT47YmNQNBGmnuMAT6k7TBoQ$> > (katran/lib/bpf/csum_helpers.h). But additional research and experiments > are needed. Anyway it is beyond the scope of this draft. > > > > May be we can just mention about such possibility for non-SRv6 aware > Special Transit Nodes in 6.5 and that would be enough to inform > implementers and operators in advance. > > > > SY, > > Boris > > > > > > On Monday, April 8, 2024 at 07:06:12 PM GMT+3, Ketan Talaulikar < > ketant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alvaro, > > I find some level of confusion on the discussion threads and it might > perhaps be due to the inconsistent use of terminologies. It would help to > use the correct terminologies from RFC8754 (6man WG RFC) to bring clarity > on what is within the scope and what is beyond the scope of this document. > > a) SR Source Node: the node originating the packet - it may have an SRH or > may skip it (section 4.1) > b) Transit Node: node doing IPv6 forwarding > c) (Ultimate) Destination Node (from RFC8200): the final node to which the > packet is destined > > The CSID document in section 6.5 does not change or update the text in > RFC8200 sec 8.1. It is simply stating what the "final destination" is going > to be when CSID is used because RFC8200 does not talk about RHs in sec 8.1. > RFC8754 covered this aspect by specifying that the last segment is the > "final destination" but this needs to be specified when using C-SID (with > or without SRH) and for all C-SID flavors/behaviors. > > I find the current text in section 6.5 to be necessary and sufficient for > implementations that claim (or need to) support SR Source Node behavior for > C-SIDs. > > The CSID document does not change any behavior at the Transit Node or for > the (Ultimate) Destination Node. Therefore, the discussion of Transit Nodes > is outside the scope of this document - just as it was outside the scope > for RFC8754. > > Now, if some "Special Transit Node" wants to go beyond RFC8200 and do > things like upper layer checksum validation enroute then they can refer to > the same text in section 6.5 to first understand CSID processing and to do > what is necessary for their packet processing enroute. This requires such > "Special Transit Nodes" to be aware of first SRv6 and now C-SID - this is > the same for any new packet encoding technology. > > It seems like we are putting the cart before the horse when raising > concerns about existing implementations that are not SRv6 and C-SID aware > of not being able to do their processing. Let us publish the C-SID document > so implementers of those "Special Transit Nodes" (also being referred to as > middleboxes on some threads) have a reference to upgrade for C-SID support. > > Finally, I’ve not heard of issues related to these "Special Transit Nodes" > from operators that have deployed SRv6. That may be a good discussion to > have (again outside the scope of this document and perhaps in srv6ops?) - > so operators who have SRv6 deployment experience can share their learnings > and best practices. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 5:34 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > We plan to send the draft to the 6man WG for review and explicitly > highlight this difference. > > Please comment on the text in Section 6.5. Does anything need to be > added, deleted, changed, or clarified? > > We want to ask for feedback soon; please send comments on this topic > by April 5th. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > -- for spring-chairs > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring [ietf.org] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!OSsGDw!NigVX2MITPjUv5es_hCerGiVQWYxbzo2f0c9dlpVV4Q41fSk37U--WWnWdpgNM6asmUyT47YmNQNBGmnuMATcBToP6c$> > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring [ietf.org] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!OSsGDw!NigVX2MITPjUv5es_hCerGiVQWYxbzo2f0c9dlpVV4Q41fSk37U--WWnWdpgNM6asmUyT47YmNQNBGmnuMATcBToP6c$> > _______________________________________________ > 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