IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 28 March 2024 13:25 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 B5D99C151525 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 Wb5zWFQJPeG5 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (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 CA4F7C15152E for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56bc8cfc19fso1110677a12.1 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1711632322; x=1712237122; 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=EdnVCeUNFFsLzIadlelZF/IiiAkBjD8W9X5QyPrXiMQ=; b=KNVR6RJzRCj2cYIdp+hhXP7R8qx8bC7cHHMadCMcPQ+akxzP0gyqn6vZNDSeTpjvoS Vc3zzA0bWZifQibjWxOQ2tCuw4smSlh7AhwrchcyXqmBhvPf8uM0jJOw7ZoAMiVg4pb9 crwsZ0qDaHBdlK9LAwkG42+H2m3klwU/kqq4Fr6e6nVYL8Dpk5ype4UD1FoDDaboXiDw tIeciUd+1SNHOzWjWqBmS4ht539qcm5FMJreFu2LdEFw8/sQKbJk1lfnNZcYX1PWDpma UZgdlBkS1jTqKcMbZ0ZMpRy19zL/3p9/6102IiPefH0iQeMPOQFa56fEfMe4xL62TFJT Yybg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711632322; x=1712237122; 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=EdnVCeUNFFsLzIadlelZF/IiiAkBjD8W9X5QyPrXiMQ=; b=tAQH5heCuTBa+ZGcRQcmYl2HgurVeAOd7pQUYRIFo674It1ZZkF10fC7UdBcEJ2iyn qeLSoet2byXjkkiWQU2z0cMYgaDxHUGmNp+1tsYkxB96ERK/Px6F4msnxlwaBSmRlh9c WM+T1JaDKrD9J/Hfds8w50OKX1eiqrK9FivQ++WImGaP3olVEfGTJJWkWk4xew/IoBIt fMkM8a9hHlA7dvexqIriEEUwIl9OZWPipffoch94SPxZlQBd2eD4QLx+Bhi9oiYMHeED 9RvGL0XS0Kg2qAcr1mB2SDK+mQSDAXWXzmw+zApl1j0s+mDfPCBIxScpFAxVES2bkMcy GD+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwXd/vFeKPF/wYiufBdDh5T3PyrxFBqQ+rPruPZJF7Qgs6Unn96 NOtd3v9WUTMVW+qhCPaeRiRL+DXdU7bADDEzymdkxNp8dqP67O1fffJCBa+GntnrOwQQOKW53xA 91E8dQEDRB5XL9/MU8wGunP0kPpK4C3bd6fRBS37NKRf8RtU+7t4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFxUvXSTIubex4AdNigRutkLfwZH5WL7TtZS3+zwQfyTqlDCJeNsvJsdHkSAZDSCAhnyXUp6oemq1MHwMJ54/0=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d5ce:0:b0:568:9cfe:1974 with SMTP id g14-20020a50d5ce000000b005689cfe1974mr2031895edj.18.1711632322244; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMESszUUdDw-xnDtZKqz75g6SXZ+7mXtZujBKwN+hxypC-Kuw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESszUUdDw-xnDtZKqz75g6SXZ+7mXtZujBKwN+hxypC-Kuw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:25:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFTpKdNtE2SGubsBKkwbgdX2G5qBxBCViCu-EFmUXjfHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008dcca00614b87487"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/fRMn-4XU15po_cHCS93jm73oUbQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (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, 28 Mar 2024 13:25:45 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

On this specific topic I think you have flatted it a bit too much.

These are apparently the options on the table:

A) Original packet get's encapsulated with IPv6 header

      A.1 SHR is added to it

             A.1.1. Regular SIDs are used
             A.1.2  Compresses SIDs are used

      A.2 SRH is not added to it

             A.2.1. Regular SID is used as destination
             A.2.2  Compresses SIDs are used in a container
             A.2.3  Compresses SID is used

B) Original packet get's send from SRv6 host (without encapsulation)

    B.1 SHR is added to it

             B.1.1. Regular SIDs are used
             B.1.2  Compresses SIDs are used

      B.2 SRH is not added to it

             B.2.1. Regular SID is used as destination
             B.2.2  Compresses SIDs are used in a container
             B.2.3  Compresses SID is used

So within all checksum related discussions so far it seems that the only
concern is about B.2.2 and perhaps B.1 however folks did state that if
there is SRH added there is no issue so I am not sure how the presence of
SRH fixes it.

Maybe there was some assumption that presence of SRH mandates
encapsulation, but I do not believe this is the case for native SRv6 hosts.

All in all I think it should be no business for transit nodes to
verify packet's upper layer checksum. I do not know if there is any RFC
which would describe what is an expected behavior for transit nodes or even
say that they MAY do it.

Kind regards,
Robert



On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:06 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Focusing on the C-SID draft, some have suggested requiring the
> presence of the SRH whenever C-SIDs are used. Please discuss whether
> that is the desired behavior (or not) -- please be specific when
> debating the benefits or consequences of either behavior.
>
> Please keep the related (but independent) discussion of requiring the
> SRH whenever SRv6 is used separate. This larger topic may impact
> several documents and is better handled in a different thread (with
> 6man and spring included).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro
> -- for spring-chairs
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email