Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 02 March 2020 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 94D023A13AE; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:20:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 uHrRYzuhHHx1; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) (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 972743A13AD; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id a141so918221wme.2; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:20:33 -0800 (PST)
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=J8JYRCYRiIS0RlmMT7FvaDiOS9zcLQHr6lMM4cfAzRQ=; b=qRkd3zyGM5snSPnLKHTaU+yi5cN0e1ML4yM4sxwmSUNPVUtnh2UyGMRdYBj1fZf748 xeFH5YIDHSr006q9Xq4EzIaGxWubSzb+LuB4N/IW1sWint79waqKHyNQjeLTh4Gwo0BR 54aofRzwTVPnCJRYW09j062iHUW1lHqKf18HnaYlHk559+b06nwjHIqjbjATyF0RwIEQ 23bNTjBwmpdtESE16X8ADRTVFMeqkGTc+xF1T/O86H0bkDs06W2Qa5HjkruX8RDdmIFi pgabeStnTmlNM4uOxtEWSamJQzSzb8LxxZyHeYbOOR+jc3EJQlG5zElyiIqCvA1+BZAm okCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2Mi+3t7vpILW3VpW8E4lz3+7iMJB3JnagAiFcfY06/XMyDcFSy yxHGvZ48gZhrRzHS6qkIwTU99hP1zujVJG8H+oI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtIZGB/sAwI7gcfPjttzJILO1kg1F5OEEFT3FgrO90Pb16hREplBoYU4hUZX2c0+lpaCcRzoQTav15z0mB5Y1s=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:155:: with SMTP id 82mr599148wmb.99.1583191231858; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:20:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <965ff6bbf1cb4c2f8d48b7b535a0cf5b@huawei.com> <CAJE_bqcTNWt==mtYKeNVXOBAzBNLG=+_mXQQ9xMHYOCDRqCb_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMEzbyzy98iFyfe6Z=dQiWHo=triX6bHKx9fNEUCaSuy3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMEzbyzy98iFyfe6Z=dQiWHo=triX6bHKx9fNEUCaSuy3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:20:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeiX1xWSMOOr=SGpVJdBSEgg-kYnUd29yeRURcVnx-xuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/xP6bi6dKAMUpzGTo06v8tNLsgMk>
Subject: Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 23:20:36 -0000

At Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:06:17 +0100,
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> Even if RFC8200 section 4 text would say:
>
>  "Extension headers cannot be added to a packet after it has left its
> source node and extension headers cannot be removed from a packet until it
> has arrived at its ultimate destination".
>
> PSP would be still not be violating anything said in this sentence. Reason
> being is that we are dealing here with an *encapsulated* packet which has
> as its ultimate destination SR node X. That SR node X is to perform or not
> PSP. So it is still fully compliant with the specification.

(Sorry for the hopefully small delay, I've been out of town for these
several days and am now catching up with the backlog).

Hmm, so, using the notation shown in Section 5.1 of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10, is this how the PSP is
expected to work?

- Node N creates an encapsulated IPv6 packet:
  (T, S1) (S3, S2, S1; SL=2) (A, B2)
- at S1, since SL != 0,
  decrease SL to 1,
  copy SList[SL] = SList[1] = S2 to the destination address of the
  IPv6 header, so we now have:
  (T, S2) (S3, S2, S1; SL=1) (A, B2)
- at S2, since SL != 0,
  decrease SL to 0
  copy SList[SL] = SList[0] = S3 to the destination address of the
  IPv6 header, so we now have:
  (T, S3) (S3, S2, S1; SL=0) (A, B2)
  according to Section S14 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.
- Now we apply Section 4.16.1 (PSP).
  Since SL == 0 at this point, Payload length and next header value
  are adjusted, RH is removed, and we now have:
  (T, S3) (A, B2)

It's not clear what will happen next from the text of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10, but is presumably it as
follows?
- The packet will be forwarded to S3
- At S3, since it's the (ultimate) destination of the outper IPv6
  packet, it decapsulates the packet, and we now have:
  (A, B2)
- The decapsulated packet is forwarded towards B2

--
JINMEI, Tatuya