Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com> Sat, 07 December 2019 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ddukes@cisco.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 7E2451207FD; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 07:57:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=a0vygA+B; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=meO3/IiY
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 mGrq5fAklbof; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 07:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76B181207FB; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 07:57:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8777; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1575734233; x=1576943833; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=c6fVPmVdlCSIZTmAUK9QyCm/qUIcUcTgdMOTCu8IjCY=; b=a0vygA+BiVcWDqCZbWx21BlicVwaZ5lXIT2ubeBVkc+IVwmmz11VWX5n RQLT9Hsp2bhTWas1XA9XgHpqRMZaVjUsS60O0vz5oFWvE2vEjUhUxv9a8 xkMKV6F/fj7HGwonPZpmREoxW2NEZoU1wGfaCA7K76cAyxDkNkwbV9P35 I=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AksMviRHZZJ44gHQJsUWJTp1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7I?= =?us-ascii?q?YmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4w3Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNV?= =?us-ascii?q?cejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+efLmci83B+xJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A2AABty+td/5pdJa1lGwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?FAQEBEQEBAwMBAQGBbAQBAQELAYFKJCwFbFggBAsqh3IDiwGWAoRigS6BJAN?= =?us-ascii?q?UCQEBAQwBARgBCgoCAQGEQAKCFSQ2Bw4CAw0BAQQBAQECAQUEbYU3DIVTAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?DAQEQLgEBLAsBDwIBCDsEBycLFBECBA4FIoMAAYF5TQMuAQIMoDcCgTiIYYI?= =?us-ascii?q?ngn4BAQWBNQGDUxiCFwMGgTYBjBcagUE/gTgggkw+gmQBAYIQCYMMgiyNOYI?= =?us-ascii?q?1hgmJUI8WCoIuhyOOQxuCQowziz2EP5JQkWYCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVkJKYFYcBU?= =?us-ascii?q?7KgGCQVARFIxmOIM7hRSFP3SBKJBGAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,288,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217";a="672579337"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 07 Dec 2019 15:57:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xB7FvBGo031140 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:57:11 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 09:57:10 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 10:57:10 -0500
Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 09:57:10 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=DFQPsMq889l0gq3p6BSFvlyx/ALKdvnzxgXr/igK/gWqt2nxuWsgYkJLl6m0BR1Il6cWhBFwd9iHWmuACM6WeNuyjyzL8Sah4SiGynFTrIDNQrU41aow721Q74npP1vIQXqfqEGMNGxJBnrTrIYwh+yMcDfcvNaRRdhy3Hu9ocnr7xSFeshsh9/9PJNaMnvyrDO6TLmIR9Xlgha4ozSzbiRMEzKgYds0SkaR+ufSdpgLkCpbxiiYFf30uaqAETXSvf/JDqcGI6mbqX3mjeDcUaqGrkuF1xMfIDE0IhpEXkOguv6pHMRQF1tz4iXFibUSRmCGYWDYk4cFDFHW853InA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=YEfoyC9xE4GxB6AuFyYqUkpM1UFFPLbQzUoxaYdpFPc=; b=F+ELfbz89Gy3JneqW//vgVOS4kW3Rjew+yUDJ0IrTnUohCq5ok3uXijemSwvm5BPf1/ruZoEoxsf93a3aWVIQ9ok4mE3m8UvU1uyP+M/Hnw2YcdTSDVpqpIEp6iixlBwR8ZczekYG/3uCN4y6gR7hs+/w3qN3z4A+4UugIB1IJF0ThkYoSdjv6gLfaTixGVkYnXpavOAC+QHVrh35Zsn8kbA76sjUUHj6nQFqEFklm218o0JLnjP3BMmlnfmNbdmVXivKfmPgzninrgoCKESHlM0BJLikWA35QCf+nTWVKtaT8NyM6QYiz5K8V/1aLi2Xee4GFBmRbyq9UsicMvJqg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=YEfoyC9xE4GxB6AuFyYqUkpM1UFFPLbQzUoxaYdpFPc=; b=meO3/IiYKa8hRL+IZ/7fbvYz1ciBjvul1Q1BW/VzyIgJq0VQql6epZpvI8gqlNdEH3PS6rIpVQvS+XsYpCeuKsT7xoA/en27eeCK2VQ7yeUEeTfkAo3IpjrtcRyMLkPpyi/D2ZEvvoQlBSn7yZVG1S0br+d9ipjT0jCs8r8BisM=
Received: from BN7PR11MB2594.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.246.159) by BN7PR11MB2609.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.244.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2516.14; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:57:08 +0000
Received: from BN7PR11MB2594.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c72:fa12:757e:cca3]) by BN7PR11MB2594.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c72:fa12:757e:cca3%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2516.014; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:57:08 +0000
From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
Thread-Index: AQHVq7OLppwlxoAxpkapR58CxSQcCKesEh6AgAAHo4CAAArdAIAAGcUAgAACwYCAAQOBgIAAEt0AgAAJFwCAABqdgIAAA1OAgAAEh4CAABhKgIAADt+AgAAF9wCAADAbAIAABhGAgAATroCAAAVhAIAAkUWAgABF3IA=
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:57:08 +0000
Message-ID: <09B00E32-37A1-4F06-81B9-6EE88639BC1D@cisco.com>
References: <f2a0ad13-0eba-6f5a-1d3c-e45e2780f201@si6networks.com> <D666EA6E-E8E9-439A-9CDE-20857F03CB65@employees.org> <4255AD3B-379C-45BF-96E1-D3D9141A684F@liquidtelecom.com> <d59de54e-c7f8-be67-1e77-b051735d40a6@gmail.com> <3bce7b18-ea45-d29f-5dfb-1d3258b07d1e@si6networks.com> <c6e1f690-b0bf-9f45-8fa7-92ed182c5b04@gmail.com> <a2cc5cbd-ac06-e193-307c-3ffe5b21b0b1@si6networks.com> <CAOj+MMGaSooQbsRzJC2yCrFeHYFvbQgLY=merdwzjBFNXAj17g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGaSooQbsRzJC2yCrFeHYFvbQgLY=merdwzjBFNXAj17g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ddukes@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0cc:1006::30]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2f826b57-ae5a-4df2-d22c-08d77b2e1d51
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR11MB2609:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN7PR11MB26099497EC1C557E7FC2B908C85E0@BN7PR11MB2609.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0244637DEA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(136003)(199004)(189003)(76176011)(478600001)(6512007)(54896002)(99286004)(4326008)(54906003)(8676002)(966005)(316002)(229853002)(2906002)(6486002)(33656002)(81156014)(81166006)(71190400001)(71200400001)(36756003)(2616005)(91956017)(76116006)(6506007)(53546011)(66556008)(66946007)(66476007)(64756008)(5660300002)(6916009)(102836004)(86362001)(8936002)(66446008)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN7PR11MB2609; H:BN7PR11MB2594.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: OOD2ElJLtfjB3/oQqPASP0BPCDD1/xwiG1jzDJMZnpf+xs/PSeA5JZctZlt/sgN9HiPHsZDFyFG8kKRftO328HFwBG1j5//wMkMss0i23jy0ZDEYvfE8yEKsEAHOF1qDXbcFrl7equAXOu1A4DfFIcKYdS3xXxEVOaaJM/rTvgWz1Vf85NQ4YNLGIVIRgmEs62s6aEB3lHGWA0k6n8tU846h6Yz2nVoAK/b9pA7hqvED2Cykd5aH4d1fbLa1SB2Djb02sx7V5LcNRkldFQJ1hjpPyJjaJ9cxDy8gx4deBZ+eZKS6i5EoADceOYs92mXV7XbgxApSsXbiV0SEUxF3OyD2eCbLcfAy4qAh1UaI9hrHIK4F7uDOjwgASUrgMcpbsxFgK5IlYhphCZPEK41QpiCCKr55H4lPd2EwyWtvWGFymZEqIeICVFpESQRt1FKKW4e53ovDQaQXI3gWmwDdVa0zwfbAa5xGGPKt70J9ntM=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_09B00E3237A14F0681B96EE88639BC1Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2f826b57-ae5a-4df2-d22c-08d77b2e1d51
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Dec 2019 15:57:08.4119 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: dc/2BXmQhzxzIO/UHme2ZlQDsW4mYxfKFkm+/C3u7DUO1vkLtVLuh7QzJenGHe1B6WxW2WmQuZ6c8TvqTM9LoA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR11MB2609
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/w0xjzUk_IOW2BmEKV3IdBrtGqsg>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
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: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 15:57:16 -0000

Hi Robert, thank you for injecting clarity to this thread.

draft-ietf-spring-network-programming defines PSP, and the only relevant portion of this thread to that draft is Discussion #3.

As I stated in another post, I consider #3 closed as this is clearly complying with RFC8200.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6Uy_JuMm7W66kTql_o7FYisxkg0

The remainder of the discussion in this thread is unrelated to draft-ietf-spring-network-programming.

Thanks
  Darren

On Dec 7, 2019, at 6:47 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:

Hey Fernando,

(pop when you are the destination but SL!=0 is essentially 'in the
network removal')

I was trying to stay out of this but I have one fundamental question or observation this entire debate seems to be about.

In the context of SRv6 there are two parallel discussions

Discussion #1 - It is about inserting, modifying or deleting SRH by nodes which are not in the outer IPv6 header of the packet

Discussion #2 - It is about RFC8200 compliance when the node doing insertion of SRH is *the* destination of the packet as read verbatim from the outer IPv6 header.

Discussion #3 - It is about RFC8200 compliance when the node doing modification or removal of SRH is *the* destination of the packet as read verbatim from the outer IPv6 header.

First let's observe that RFC8200 is only defining the behaviour regarding EH processing in the context of destination address of the IPv6 outer header: "identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. "

Therefore stating that SL value before local decrement matters in this in respect to being compliant to the IPv6 RFC is at best just an individual interpretation. Besides the pseudocode says it black and white "S14.1.   If (updated SL == 0) {". We do all sort of processing decision after decrementing the values ... think TTL :)

So back to reality ...

Discussion #1 - I think we all agree that to accomplish that RFC8200 would need to be updated.

Discussion #2 - I think we also all agree here that to accomplish this RFC8200 would need to be updated as it does says clearly that "Each extension header should occur at most once, ..."

Discussion #3 - It seems clearly that there is no issue with compliance with RFC8200 and that if penultimate segment midpoint decides or is instructed to pop SRH it sure can and still be 100% compliant with current wording of RFC8200.

So other then so much foam what is this debate all about ?

Cheers,
Robert.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------