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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 06 May 2019 01:00 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 D61921200C3; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7aPpOW8PgXo; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32d.google.com (mail-ot1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d]) (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 AB14D1201E9; Sun, 5 May 2019 17:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id f23so10003172otl.9; Sun, 05 May 2019 17:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NoWLohj1ONfeM2qy0xtM9NV27cCCtl6+WBhAAOp11RI=; b=CEkNqDZtuyXh7I072s7WhgUpzVfyFvPJ0v3cSqhS9IWg+xvo4exzm7JGtmmRjHqDA9 z2ZOjyTWu4xUyxi8WrRUbKdlhQfl3cxrx1Wz08bB+OE3blbZIWmkJ7a2kbbD0BFwb2Ou umyCrOqcN9cTD8GaM48QrWhGwMt++GlpvVsnvOXVQ5MXqzoeZY5INNPtn+g6N9oWrODG 1gI04JXK7BqNRKDNm1V/A1+DQWt2rjj7IPH8JPg+tE+u0WocbisHThvwrZf6ZzNa0B2k bbOmWPDWafiTZf/Onivin0BnI4H5boGO4yBDmeW0XaPqzSzJe980BmxqepTemhf0aFnT klFA==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NoWLohj1ONfeM2qy0xtM9NV27cCCtl6+WBhAAOp11RI=; b=JJU1gs6UQsOYW+a7go6gdzfwQedqVpZk7uP8Ixj7HWBOJ+UdBMgQVf9qhzMRriC7L2 aVPfm+DqEafOTNVw23dIsvjgFfyjS8OKGg83yXB/zXyf249rlaedZx01gAE4VM5x7Myz 4wNVPMzIyBuerlvt/VhF8cMqamwJHmt9aG4n/14dnkXfMMT7crCo1Q/Ts2Sw3h1/Tpb5 hgEmurRJ9ywecW8vHBaQ2Zftn7BTLeCE8GJxstwfJQlEgKW0zHdpJ0zjI+DGwAgJp2MM snp9FLBO9vHnps84QkZfDzPm2xUo2wXmx6oUj1HtuuVn0fExmbvO1WVQcAv42m9Akx7c q5AA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU0kDI8ZQWHOUOdSVfwArGtM0zZiVzWTqNzlCFUvnF5mvUDo3yY aHqZANRt+LnwanNjXwKFOBeucKBPnddeGYHntnxpbw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwR6EjKNzljr0TPtRXdixOuJwsJGprIeiaX7KEhAmzCHHam1rNK9hNioYuoxF4t2P55sls06uudsHoUyh37gEY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4e15:: with SMTP id p21mr15339332otf.285.1557104289942; Sun, 05 May 2019 17:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR05MB4245988C3A47C3665BD91172AE300@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <f888a58b-629d-b3bb-e797-7ab0e06ffa33@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <f888a58b-629d-b3bb-e797-7ab0e06ffa33@joelhalpern.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 10:57:43 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2y9WF7eeX27098=YfiJiax+HoEH6BC8sY1fm6NMgTH7LQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/jzQxSrMGOBSkkjea0allsjqGNog>
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 01:00:24 -0000

On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 10:56, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>
> Using "No next header" to mean "next header Ethernet" seems to me to be
> flat wrong.
>

+1

It fails "truth in advertising" and "the principle of least surprise".

> This also brings up another problem.  Having the SID specify the next
> header, over-riding the next header value, seems to me to be a recipe
> for fragility, likely leading to mis-implementation.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 5/5/19 8:47 PM, Ron Bonica 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?
> >
> >                                                            Ron
> >
> >
> > Juniper Internal
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------