Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 06 May 2019 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 D80FF12008F for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 YkpxwSRR1sBl for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) (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 2F4B3120048 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id w20so953528qka.7 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 May 2019 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kEK+tepO/nGxltqxBt65i608PKU1/hU4ZJok2NAaV3E=; b=RwbXM2Bw8XY3SwE+hX7BP8Pb3tNsttjIC8+36dBw6IQFoV2qxz7Wi7mKOZoI8X9IEc QButQrzWQ/fc8DHoadWH6143lZ2hDKNDq0oWQoVJkda6nSCDg0tvEgL/YdRWJ1x0JEf/ ay913am3bd4F8VgBt1V1q++Vo8YNbPRciEoLKhR5Zuqe60xUMqL1ld5YvjJJveS5/WIT WbA9gYm0j78oyNtGvJbAdgpI8uEKnHbTiPUAjX2qoyMLzagNZ9cIcf00jCsOna3h0+mw 69Jg1D7HtltMDyGXn3w1yA0FBzNNyc42da8sD2W8GPZSimeBNqLX/k+cwA+sm8k2m7Go zVzA==
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=kEK+tepO/nGxltqxBt65i608PKU1/hU4ZJok2NAaV3E=; b=Ifdl+NOHm86z00Pzo7jWhofBy7n+IabPgQCGOLWPL1HolbGf3I4y7GRXqNRrOXPwyX nc/jls01+wh6J/Fvof2++paq8jyLnFng72snqRgE/30OnFfO9adxr7iwx1ndCvTBRLEA UUTEiJSmD6QiCFUZxifiVnB/6wSkywdLY2TEUQ8OrU55rOYmbdyKAYyiqWoMl1Vtd6rE yNC6Hg6xkqhvPzVIlYp0+rRmKRy8oDMpouX/DQvrPu0nanu0RRhRPYSjT/HpC2yqVu5y nJA3KeDhTSEOKTMD9CcCpuvjdGa3wVvzjiWAp9ivjdAHmvNwB9m2/3K2I4EBiCeE7l0V LoiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW56o2AHs+1wGycW1gKvL1cpFu9RYuhssb1ppk4PwppDF1ralI9 UY4uYawx0P5Rp4Z6Jbcrnkxa9+op12d3kGtaK6p7mw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyRQYTK9pmIRT/PK8XHksee5Y9hcRcLjquyeLVbpbodbR/U/atKYADkJKDTGCr8aaMJhOR8OADmlE3Lx4XOqlw=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6c84:: with SMTP id h126mr18456311qkc.168.1557105553184; Sun, 05 May 2019 18:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR05MB4245988C3A47C3665BD91172AE300@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S358r54Z7U_GM88PnTDmd503BAjE6-ff9CDpjyAY4Cq_sg@mail.gmail.com> <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB88504C@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB88504C@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 18:19:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34bx=cfsuYEVx0oLPnD634LZ7W++=0boKFiWm0qJ-mEhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000602fce05882de3c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/gjXvW9WyODd5nthr_1LNp_dUqCI>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
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: Mon, 06 May 2019 01:19:17 -0000

On Sun, May 5, 2019, 6:15 PM Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
>
>
> Number 97 is a choice but it has 2 bytes wasting.
>
Jingrong,


To the contrary, those two bytes are critical, they maintain proper
alignment of network and transport layers. Ask the SPARC engineers about
how much fun it is to deal with unaligned network headers! ;-)

Tom


>
> Jingrong
>
>
>
> *From:* ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom Herbert
> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2019 9:11 AM
> *To:* Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2019, 5:47 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> According to Section 4.4 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-00,
> when processing the End.DX2 SID, the Next Header must be equal to 59.
> Otherwise, the packet will be dropped.
>
> In the words of the draft, "We conveniently reuse the next-header value 59
> allocated to IPv6 No Next Header [RFC8200].  When the SID corresponds to
> function End.DX2 and the Next-Header value is 59, we know that an Ethernet
> frame is in the payload without any further header."
>
> According to Section 4.7 RFC 8200, " The value 59 in the Next Header field
> of an IPv6 header or any  extension header indicates that there is nothing
> following that header.  If the Payload Length field of the IPv6 header
> indicates the presence of octets past the end of a header whose Next Header
> field contains 59, those octets must be ignored and passed on unchanged if
> the packet is forwarded."
>
> Does the WG think that it is a good idea to reuse the Next Header value
> 59? Or would it be better to allocate a new Next Header value that
> represents Ethernet?
>
>
>
> Tom,
>
>
>
> There's already ETHERIP number (97). Why not use that?
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>                                                           Ron
>
>
> Juniper Internal
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>