Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 00:49 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 EE83912018B; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:49:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 0jtH-jblIqFS; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:49:11 -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 77DC91200F6; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47Xdbq32ZKz6GChr; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:49:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1576025351; bh=ZOwU0Qtwh7zGfiQO7gNAPZa2YQkn9EtrJ6MYRdOjUyw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=BCh/w3ku5OoljunHHtuEl3yhPxOcvac3YWe39czBtk72gUhkNwmNbmGxAI3ENtOjD CbleQFBp4xc1aJlFSXK5mquN751/C1brscwN5cBIqUTX3+pHKZVYe6ABcFFj7O6rsx 44O2/L/M/u/+8b4YRX88Cx+cbhyj4K4F/WeAEYpg=
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 47Xdbp0QF5z6GChb; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:49:09 -0800 (PST)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <6c674995-8cc7-c024-4181-60b160910f75@si6networks.com> <29345_1576001884_5DEFE15C_29345_229_5_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D250B7@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <89402a30-129b-314f-90f1-ba6efcdd6a88@si6networks.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <795b498c-39b9-a3d8-e9f8-77fd53f48e6a@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:49:07 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <89402a30-129b-314f-90f1-ba6efcdd6a88@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/pGS5O53VTDSt2tpc7mm3FVVd0Xk>
Subject: Re: [spring] 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: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:49:13 -0000

Fernando, I really wish I could agree with you.
But I can't.

In 8200, it is clear that the meaning fo "Destination Address" for an 
IPv6 packet is the value placed in the IPv6 destination address field. 
the fact that if we had looked ahead we might have said something 
different does not change what words we chose to use.  If I am going to 
insist (as I have in other contexts) that other folks live with the 
words we compromised on in 8200, then I have to live myself with the 
words we compromised on in 8200.

I have concerns about whether PSP is a good design.  I am trying to 
write a useful note on the topic.  (And without such a note, I can not 
expect anyone to care about thoughts in my head.)   But I can not and 
will not claim that PSP violates RFC 8200.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/10/2019 6:16 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Bruno,
> 
> On 10/12/19 13:18, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
>> Fernando,
>>
>> Thank you for spelling out your comment, plus on the WGLC thread.
>> More in-line
>>
>>> Bruno,
>>>
>>> On 5/12/19 12:15, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
>>> [....]>
>>>> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
>>>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version,
>>>> and send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not
>>>> duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are
>>>> only spring specifics.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated
>>>> on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.
>>>>
>>>> This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point and
>>>> that other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted into
>>>> parallel independent discussions)
>>>
>>> Penultimate Segment Popping describes/specifies the removal of a SRH at
>>> a place other than the final destination of the packet.
>>>
>>> Such behavior violates RFC8200, which specifies:
>>>
>>     > Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not
>>     > processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery
>>     > path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes,
>>     > in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field
>>     > of the IPv6 header.
>>>
>>> Note, of course, that the reference of "Destination Address" in RFC8200
>>> is clearly the final destination of the packet -- for instance, RFC8200
>>
>> I hear and can understand your reading of RFC8200.
> 
> Could you please check RFC8200, and tell me what other possible
> interpretation of "Destination Address" you might have, in the context
> of RFC8200.
> 
> RFC8200 does not even specify any routing header types. SO...where's the
> ambiguity?
> 
> 
> 
>> At minimum, I think that we can agree that there is another reading, as expressed by other WG participants, and hence I disagree with "of course".
> 
> No, I argue that there is not. IN fact, I argue that folks have been
> following that strategy for way too long, and that's quite frustrating.
> 
> 
> 
>> Personally, I understand "Destination Address" as "Destination Address field of the IPv6 header." as indicated explicitly in the text quoted.
> 
> The quoted text is from RFC8200. In the context of RFC8200 the
> Destination Address can only contain the ultimate destination of the
> packet. Where's the ambiguity?
> 
> And let me ask you, as chair, another question, that will lead you to
> the same place: is IPv6 and end to end protocol?
> 
> 
> The fact that I may claim that RFC8200 contains a receipe for BBQ does
> not actually mean that that's the case.
> 
> 
> 
>> I'm fine with having this clarified with 6MAND chairs and AD. That been said, the Internet AD would have an opportunity to DISCUSS this.
> 
> For the record, I think this is a major issue that should be cleared
> before it can be claimed that there is consensus to request publication
> of this document.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>> does not specify any routing header type, and hence the meaning is
>>> unambiguous (there's no destination other than the final destination of
>>> the packet).
>>>
>>> This is of course in line with IPv6 being and end-to-end protocol, and
>>> crucial for other related mechanisms to work as expected (such as IPsec
>>> AH). Please also check: draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful.
>>>
>>> So, in order to proceed with the document, there are multiple options
>>> forward:
>>>
>>> 1) Just remove the corresponding text/behavior
>>
>> That is indeed one option. But as of today, this is not my assumption.
>>   
>>> 2) Implement a similar mechanism in an RFC8200-compliant manner (e.g.,
>>> re-encap)
>>
>> SRH insert is out of scope of this specification. So yes, IPv6 encaps is used.
>> We are talking SRH removal. I'm assuming that you are referring to PSP. My understanding is that this function (PSP) is to distribute the (forwarding plane) load between the PSP and the USP. In a way similar to MPLS PHP. But in all cases, this is not about SRH insertion.
> 
> It's about SRH removal, which is also forbiden by RFC8200.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 3) Do the necessary standards work to update RFC8200, such that it
>>> allows this sort of behavior, and only ship the network-programming
>>> draft for publication when at least 6man has consensus to proceed on
>>> that path.
>>
>> Not the preferred path as of today.
> 
> Yes, it should be evident that it seems the preferred path has been
> (starting with EH insertion at the time) to circumvent existing
> specifications.
> 
> 
> 
>>   
>>> P.S.: I will go through the document once again... but the same
>>> reasoning should be applied to any EH-insertion/removal at a place other
>>> than the source of the packet or its final destination.
>>
>> It looks to me that SRH insertion and SRH removal are to be treated differently.
> 
> I don't see how or why. Both violate the same requirement in RFC8200.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
>