Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 01 March 2020 04:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 133F43A19DB; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 20:50:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 W1y3yj70R_Em; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 20:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFD893A19DA; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 20:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48VW6P4936z6GD5R; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 20:50:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1583038205; bh=8UZ4DrSggf7OcRoASTQajHaMYCVDKVzYVc6b6VSNFUY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ljuuOHCJ2x9ANTgUa2UfQ6Ha9IEG5nGhTgllaSN00QglWbEQnEAgxnljK5KDHY+MD kNXBUQ+/oFnoOLjhrgm9bUckXfaVwLkH/8/nZlM5qM015zdPndLHR3yyc5eoVRBGcy oV4oqeVSKsVRp8ccAl1zQR8u3Io9QRBBNpV5nykM=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48VW6N47wJz6G9pS; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 20:50:04 -0800 (PST)
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
References: <965ff6bbf1cb4c2f8d48b7b535a0cf5b@huawei.com> <CAJE_bqcTNWt==mtYKeNVXOBAzBNLG=+_mXQQ9xMHYOCDRqCb_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMEzbyzy98iFyfe6Z=dQiWHo=triX6bHKx9fNEUCaSuy3Q@mail.gmail.com> <085238CD-14F6-43AE-8D58-49A20DDCBB24@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMGzjP4C4CXi+6i+o_TMO5Un8HdGF+MMGLVa-KPUH+pXZw@mail.gmail.com> <3c07fa08-cd93-d0ae-fc76-ac8c8ae5baa7@gmail.com> <CA+RyBmX0EQydgvgUoPJB+6z6hcAiesVr43MnK_HNua0v8BieVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHBdU=urwhJV6QTn8RZZKZ0kyefHF9TDRbv5cH5CAQ5qg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <c2a0cef9-51b1-ca76-99ad-718a37b06d4f@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 23:50:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHBdU=urwhJV6QTn8RZZKZ0kyefHF9TDRbv5cH5CAQ5qg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/eSP4xVYVgjtCmAMGMkqHedv80jU>
Subject: Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
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: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 04:50:08 -0000

Presuming that by "OEM" you mean "OAM", then no, this does not work.
If the OAM is intended to monitor a path that has a last SID whose 
flavor is PSP, then something will break.  The monitoring will monitor 
something else, or it won't monitor the last hop, or...

Given the point that was made that ignoring a source route (SRH or 
otherwise) with segments-left = 0 is a mandatory behavior of 8200, I am 
really left puzzled as to what use case justifies the contortion of PSP.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/29/2020 3:36 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Greg,
> 
> You are thinking of PSP like MPLS PHP to apply to all packets towards 
> the guy who advertised implicit-null label.
> 
> That is not the case here at all.
> 
> You apply PSP when you like on a per segment endpoint basis. OEM as we 
> have all agreed will not be subject to PSP.. Is there a value to keep 
> repeating that every day :) ?
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 8:57 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com 
> <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Brian,
>     you've said
> 
>           Also, answering
>         your question "what harm does it do?" I think the answer
>         objectively is "none, unless
>         you want to use AH". 
> 
>     On the other thread Ron and I have pointed that PSP does have
>     decremental effect on the ability to perform OAM, particularly
>     performance monitoring, and the use of the O-bit proposed in
>     draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03>is
>     questionable. Though these may not be veied as harmful
>     consequences of PSP but they clearly, in my opinion, are benefitial
>     either.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Greg
> 
>     On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:25 AM Brian E Carpenter
>     <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
> 
>         On 01-Mar-20 07:25, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>          > Hi John,
>          >
>          > I respectfully will disagree with your assessment.
>          >
>          > Reason #1 - IPv6 can be encapsulated in IPv6 - RFC2473. This
>         is base of SRv6 operation. If this would be deprecated, moved to
>         historic or made illegal - games over. But if this is still
>         legal then ultimate destination for a packet is what it listed
>         in outer IPv6 header DA. That's pretty basic. Now what the
>         destination in the header will do with the packet is completely
>         different story.
>          >
>          > Reason #2 - "a node can’t be both the penultimate, and the
>         ultimate, node." Of course it can. You are looking flat ..
> 
>         But I've been told by several people that this is not the use
>         case. I believe
>         the little diagram I sent yesterday is the use case. And the
>         trick in the description
>         of PSP is what I pointed out yesterday too: deleting the header
>         when segments-left == 0
>         but the destination address is not yet set to the final one:
> 
>         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/n46VuroVGvRurIgGNLZxFbAHvIo/
> 
>         The thing is, it can be coded and I fully believe there is
>         running code. Also, answering
>         your question "what harm does it do?" I think the answer
>         objectively is "none, unless
>         you want to use AH". Making a packet smaller on the last hop
>         cannot break PMTUD.
> 
>         So I think the text needs to admit the trick it's playing on RFC
>         8200. Then the IETF
>         can choose whether to let that trick pass.
> 
>             Brian
> 
> 
>          > If you look at different layers the same node is in fact
>         acting in multiple roles - I can easily count 3 but with TI-LFA
>         it could be  even more.
>          >
>          > The same node is ultimate destination for the outer header
>          > in the same time
>          > The same node is penultimate destination for SR path
>          > in the same time
>          > The same node is just regular IPv6 transit from the
>         perspective of the original non encapsulated packet
>          >
>          > Kind regards,
>          > R.
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 6:46 PM John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net
>         <mailto:jgs@juniper.net> <mailto:jgs@juniper.net
>         <mailto:jgs@juniper.net>>> wrote:
>          >
>          >     Robert,
>          >
>          >     I think your comment (emphasis added):
>          >
>          >>     we are dealing here with an *encapsulated* packet which
>         _has as its ultimate destination_ SR node X. That SR node X is
>         to perform or not PSP.
>          >
>          >     Is wrong. It contradicts everything else that’s been said
>         in the hundreds of messages that have gone before, not to
>         mention the plain language
>         of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10. The word
>         “penultimate” itself is enough to prove this: by definition a
>         node can’t be both the penultimate, and the ultimate, node. It’s
>         a contradiction in terms, like saying 0 equals 1.
>          >
>          >     Now, if node X were to remove the RH /and perform the
>         decapsulation/ that would be a different story, but the whole
>         point of PSP is that X removes the RH and then sends the
>         encapsulated packet on to Y which performs the decapsulation.
>         (This point was made in one of the other threads recently, but
>         I’ve lost track of by whom and which thread.) As far as I can
>         tell, this non-controversial behavior is described in 4.16..3 of
>         the draft and referred to as “USD”.
>          >
>          >     —John
>          >
>          >>     On Feb 29, 2020, at 6:06 AM, Robert Raszuk
>         <robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>
>         <mailto:robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>> wrote:
>          >>
>          >>     Dear Jinmei,
>          >>
>          >>     Even if RFC8200 section 4 text would say:
>          >>
>          >>      "Extension headers cannot be added to a packet after it
>         has left its source node and extension headers cannot be removed
>         from a packet until it has arrived at its ultimate destination".
>          >>
>          >>     PSP would be still not be violating anything said in
>         this sentence. Reason being is that we are dealing here with an
>         *encapsulated* packet which has as its ultimate destination SR
>         node X. That SR node X is to perform or not PSP. So it is still
>         fully compliant with the specification.
>          >>
>          >>     IMHO the only grey area as pointed by Brian is if
>         RFC8200 section 4.4 really mandates you to look at segments_left
>         before processing the packet or it is equally legal to look at
>         that value after local processing occurs. Definition says:
>          >>
>          >>
>          >>           Segments Left       8-bit unsigned integer. 
>         Number of route
>          >>                               segments remaining, i.e.,
>         number of explicitly
>          >>                               listed intermediate nodes
>         still to be visited
>          >>                               before reaching the final
>         destination.
>          >>
>          >>     which to me really means that as long as you recognize
>         given routing header type you can decrement this value and if
>         zero remove it.
>          >>
>          >>     Besides that is a minor detail - as NPG draft could be
>         updated to say:
>          >>
>          >>      S14.1.   If (Segments Left Before Local Decrement == 1) {
>          >>      S14.2.      Update the Next Header field in the
>         preceding header to the
>          >>                     Next Header value of the SRH
>          >>      S14.3.      Decrease the IPv6 header Payload Length by
>         the Hdr Ext Len
>          >>                     value of the SRH
>          >>      S14.4.      Remove the SRH from the IPv6 extension
>         header chain
>          >>      S14.5.   }
>          >>
>          >>     Many thx,
>          >>     R.
>          >>
>          >>     On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:28 AM 神明達哉
>         <jinmei@wide.ad.jp <mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
>         <mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp <mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp>>> wrote:
>          >>
>          >>         At Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:54:28 +0000,
>          >>         "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com
>         <mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com> <mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.
>         <mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.>..com>> wrote:
>          >>
>          >>         > The design of PSP for the benefits of deployment
>         is based on the understanding
>          >>         > that it does not violate section 4 of RFC8200. In
>         case the RFC8200 text may be
>          >>         > modified in the future, the PSP may also need to
>         change accordingly.
>          >>
>          >>         No, it violates Section 4 of RFC8200.  It's a pity
>         that we have to
>          >>         discuss it at this level due to the poor editorial
>         work then (I was
>          >>         also responsible for that as one of those reviewing
>         the bis draft),
>          >>         but anyone who involved the discussion should know
>         the intent of this
>          >>         text intended to say (borrowing from Ron's text)
>         "Extension headers
>          >>         cannot be added to a packet after it has left the
>         its source node and
>          >>         extension headers cannot be removed from a packet
>         until it has arrived
>          >>         at its ultimate destination"..  It might look "an
>         attempt of blocking
>          >>         an innovation by a small group of vocal
>         fundamentalists", but if you
>          >>         see the responses without a bias, you'd notice that
>         even some of those
>          >>         who seem neutral about the underlying SRv6 matter
>         interpret the text
>          >>         that way.
>          >>
>          >>         I'd also note that simply because PSP violates
>         RFC8200 doesn't
>          >>         immediately mean it (PSP) "needs to change".  It can
>         update RFC8200 with
>          >>         explaining why it's necessary and justified.  That's
>         what I
>          >>         requested as you summarized:
>          >>
>          >>         > Jinmei: it should say it updates this part of
>         RFC8200 and explain why it's justified.
>          >>
>          >>         And, since PSP at least wouldn't break PMTUD, I
>         guess the update
>          >>         proposal will have much more chance to be accepted
>         than a proposal
>          >>         including EH insertion.  On the other hand,
>         pretending there's no
>          >>         violation will certainly trigger many appeals and
>         objections at the
>          >>         IETF last call (I'll certainly object to it).  In
>         the end, it can
>          >>         easily take much longer, or even fail, than formally
>         claiming an
>          >>         update to RFC8200.
>          >>
>          >>         --
>          >>         JINMEI, Tatuya
>          >>
>          >>         _______________________________________________
>          >>         spring mailing list
>          >> spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
>         <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
>          >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>         <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Qj4iGvIKXE0YABWYjk5PNMfr1edPfPjJBED6VMnC3MxTiIYCqCc0y3UdazBorQ$>
>          >>
>          >>   
>           --------------------------------------------------------------------
>          >>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>          >> ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org
>         <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
>          >>     Administrative Requests:
>         https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Qj4iGvIKXE0YABWYjk5PNMfr1edPfPjJBED6VMnC3MxTiIYCqCc0y3X18TtwYw$
>         <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Qj4iGvIKXE0YABWYjk5PNMfr1edPfPjJBED6VMnC3MxTiIYCqCc0y3X18TtwYw$>
>          >>   
>           --------------------------------------------------------------------
>          >
>          >
>          >
>         --------------------------------------------------------------------
>          > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>          > ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>          > Administrative Requests:
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>          >
>         --------------------------------------------------------------------
>          >
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         spring mailing list
>         spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>