Re: [spring] How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Sun, 24 May 2020 21:09 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 B09233A0C0E for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 wR5vQv5pDXrX for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62b.google.com (mail-ej1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62b]) (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 1947F3A0C0C for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id x1so18618337ejd.8 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:09:07 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a/N36OFjafuo7+KA+W9mPjq7Lg1UHLjcMv+dct4qK74=; b=wwVnPMQnQyK4TVF4gP0srl3N1wG8HBBZe1PJtD9mfohLSBo+C1gB6xHvmkS0zYYS9s qyeLVIaQxs4wAUF/9d7uenRIVXIb+zc5qAfSwjVLMPsLPk5SlKHCUTpeFswaTmIMBwtA s18p2qjrfnisbzWa1gJ0vZ9NcXPNFpl8LSGezTxnBErWyKfi8Z+wXGc4jwOGxUSAqKzJ noAq2BZbVa4uwAXHxin+XEqKT4VHW4hIdM6wAt+ZhKVOx6kWfvt6gjTV64k1+ycaLntl I13zm9jds5/4fBur/LuB/FGl8EB+xrd7EnddVr4OOY9xIowW66eZDUipiABehko2WHEy RCHA==
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=a/N36OFjafuo7+KA+W9mPjq7Lg1UHLjcMv+dct4qK74=; b=W4VebwQYdYTeAtoqGHKQ3LQACLLMuXJkzivdIQ3guIjXQeMnS6vyBFddHx9Xaq9NXK vYFIv7eTC8vSKbIRTPg5tCWAh8TF1bHD2jL3E13L6G9j7F1IzcPWoTkvIDzCEO3WyoxV xEL3jxgBg3SGfswsjHkYf8UmmW2OiGgqoQJkgj894viIzECnBdZZOPxHLeKrBr5iZ2ds WQjEK1l8bi5/IWsHGFlk/6vVBmRuu4PpUVn6LOH1Adv/iJKk2NG9FN3QfpMqt8pDXCgt Ib5IuA83PJO7JJ5ZPybILi2bg86vxsccgj7TaBHCCAco7HqGDl0Iv+YwDjshPZhQ+aWd Xchw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Zm7ckUHileP9Ecg5NauNEL3Yngxgo4SuBNwkdV3DPPTeRcPFY hRFzLJnWC5sLc9/eKBl4C0QGmmgp6ZUEfIw+lxJjww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtHqjPyPGwO8w0MKdl2I3DFNN/s86zH+Yb7WQ7JBL0/MLmOGc1Ut13e8fbJKveXPcHO6tQaX+dTdSWEPu/YmU=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:438e:: with SMTP id oj22mr16950871ejb.195.1590354545446; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2CD12@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB63482CFA4D5AB938D5A4B818AEB40@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A37DC6@dggeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB63489256A7C8357BEF526EE2AEB20@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMGLj9OgFCcsB21oWXbcCqHZ7B4qTvCcrK9LXuKDYVu_vQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGLj9OgFCcsB21oWXbcCqHZ7B4qTvCcrK9LXuKDYVu_vQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 14:08:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S36yJ5CS6ykQhd_sW3T6=PjVJNOqewtg2joUtHnbsZPxSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/oexiovQLwT8JhCYLHXpEYyCuU_A>
Subject: Re: [spring] How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
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, 24 May 2020 21:09:09 -0000

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 3:23 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I have one small question on the Destination Option Header you keep referencing to carry for example VPN demux instructions.
>
> As DOH follows Fragment Header it is indeed inspected before CRH.
>
> So please kindly clarify what is there in the IPv6 packet header which would stop each segment endpoint (during the transit over SR anchors)  which destination is obviously in DA of the arriving packet not to inspect DOH and not trying to execute it ?
>
> If you could please also provide reference to RFC8200 defining it.
>
Robert,

Look at Destination Options before the routing header in RFC8200.
These are intended to be processed at every intermediate destination
in the routing header and precede any fragment header.

Tom

> Keep in mind that in number of networks P routers are also PE routers so executing DOH even if CRH still contains many hops to go may result in very unexpected behaviours. I am sure you recall that L3VPN labels are locally significant and there is no mechanism in place to assure uniqueness of VPN demux values across PEs..
>
> Why is this important here - because CRH by design is decoupled from any functions or network application handling.
>
> Many thx,
> Robert.
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 3:24 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Cheng,
>>
>>
>>
>> The CRH is a building block. It has exactly one function. That is, to steer a packet along its delivery path.
>>
>>
>>
>> The CRH does not attempt to deliver parameters or metadata to service function instances. It relies on other mechanisms. One possibility is a destination options header that precedes the CRH. I am sure that there are other mechanisms. CRH should be compatible with all of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally, I am not an NSH expert. Maybe someone who is can speak up.
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                                                               Ron
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------