IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] SRH scratch space (was Re: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Tue, 10 December 2019 21:02 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 08F5E120121; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:02:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.497 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, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 pJk5xIIrUbEo; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 D53A6120104; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x14so11166477oic.10; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:02:32 -0800 (PST)
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; bh=MdBes8WQ7wLj7/lCo4RhMRWrdJQpr7ZOyMZg3C1XdV8=; b=jmBfSl72CJAYy6guKuhhsbNMu3r8Bs6T+l4bhlemvy5I3HncHrBrMolgVFE32DbglK d6zu/1YutyXhXe0miRFhuQ7ixbvklyoJS4YprcYeCbPxbvpwSUBaVn/3tD+RKU1CvSVF REAJhoGxKcn94gvsrjM1g+pYx5XJy+FcnSLAzP5tAJdEsS9qWdr6lfUiqzCZudab4DZh FhW88Yc4mVsFicNYVy+mkPYxgcvLxPSaWWhgbFWd+Y/6pu3kPhwyz1Yvhw3ALMoRCBjX pIBmqqmzKMTNjjoT2zbjE4J+Ps32YN5uTTr2SjKCP+xRkmXvI0KIi98dFfpEsI5VQH2J zMJw==
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=MdBes8WQ7wLj7/lCo4RhMRWrdJQpr7ZOyMZg3C1XdV8=; b=o/lsbk5jSxv1wXbrWsTI5crCieJEcVjqgTr3q5HSYJzUYJBUURzHMZHrjrbCaTOCQD g6JnWBt+AOKLISeHkdtUyfmKrddnF5NhYaWfbjwIFq99iRzBzgxIqQ/5RANKif0QHXlW jygyWuZEs6r450RsSnntHitiLc+TgvCBuX5t6LYgJ7Gi43iSDyTR0+YAjHRp60Glzba8 Falvml2ONhXSeZbYF1ImF3bYDNMsNEC4yskDdjVkjgny65w04ZGGtixEKvLYh0w5rmf+ Sha5SrmTTB4p6wKIQuGzeV94oOmp8m7a6HO9w8b4Iujmtc39dR8sr7l6gtZqMmTBnzKm l4lw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUY/mkcnC917S3PU7z2kQoWEL3jpdRF5It6MIHH2mHxaQK9v/Z5 COgFLREgaAkM8MeShE86cAfso38cKbTkSW7IkAY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyzHkbI89na47seX1Lek5bCc5Z2Oo+AS5W/XOqsI8RZU9Tt087fmjg4G+Yrs0IrARkp+3I1g7DhUxPV6143FdU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:f:: with SMTP id u15mr800249oic.164.1576011752112; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:02:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <HK0PR03MB3970C6DCC635E7CD802D65FDFCBD0@HK0PR03MB3970.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB54636A2332FED916A26A6F14AEBD0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3e31873a-278a-2154-0e71-4d820bba323d@gont.com.ar> <4012D854-2F10-4476-951D-FFFE73C5083C@gmail.com> <cb2f56f8-acdc-d68d-0878-9609cb3d7b1b@gont.com.ar> <28214_1567694772_5D711FB4_28214_238_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFA9F3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <129bbb32-0f14-b799-430c-8f76fb6b1279@gont.com.ar> <1824_1575998223_5DEFD30F_1824_112_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D24EBD@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4384c08a-65f5-dbfb-85c7-8365feba9662@gmail.com> <CAOj+MME1+JXth8m4U_E5R6VLvurVR_y_DQvOBy7JmGxHZp7T=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriV8BFjOed_-QJYEZc_BANvEuc1hRgYjSdaVUYygVzPj+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHCA+=9zv_UJAF3gC6R1TWKb6LQJxaGsrRa0N7Amdxrww@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriWbz3Gf2UcNDigRVo8gEssdaL6HnH2_6Ln050gQFbFDYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGuParGLAA9_2n1zihGjJsKHr+NOK3EXP3j87ibXqmhmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriVdDSw4FOk5ApQq935H5aes5OBH=L=hhGD_6U0wGBCA0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriVdDSw4FOk5ApQq935H5aes5OBH=L=hhGD_6U0wGBCA0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:02:21 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2whpnfLfC0fJg58AK=QsZK4QNbAHb6E4H2hULkocUPNcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a5879305995fd423"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/stR7afYCFprYSqpbRvGMoqgP5pQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRH scratch space (was Re: Question about SRv6 Insert function)
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:02:34 -0000

Perhaps we need to update RFC8200 and eliminate the source address field,
or at least update it so that it can hold a multicast address, indicating
the packet has multiple source devices.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 07:54 Erik Kline, <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah right.
>
> Still, in terms of the things that could be relaxed in 8200, allowing the
> SRH to be treated more like a Hop-by-Hop header might be more palatable
> than things that change the effective MTU.
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:42 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> The issue is that RFC8200 forbids even modification to any EH unless the
>> node is a destination node in top most IPv6 header.
>>
>>
>> If there were no resolution to the insertion question vis a vis RFC 8200,
>>> then would it then suffice to recommend that ingress nodes should include
>>> some padding for these non-SR midpoints to play with (iff. the network has
>>> such midpoints), and otherwise abide by RFC 8200?
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>

v2.2.0 | Report a Bug | By Email