Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 08 May 2019 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 EAF76120135; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 uGa69jVLnppb; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06343120025; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CC30FECC04F; Wed, 8 May 2019 18:13:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6407014E43AF; Wed, 8 May 2019 20:13:40 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB42459C7A22F5AF2F1AB75CD1AE320@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 20:13:40 +0200
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B2E808BB-E995-4AEE-A9E4-8AA7F92E4939@employees.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB4245988C3A47C3665BD91172AE300@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <AA81898A-9E6C-4AD5-9629-4BA283378A79@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB4245AEA785C959D29E4ECE61AE310@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <58529f07-acfc-3678-5381-4ae271143a45@gmail.com> <94EF12FB-0598-4E76-9A60-0CF67096DD04@employees.org> <CALx6S360dJD4_YcqMMy9k8NOLNdy1UZPAzBNOw1WpAz6iYfWag@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wBL=h=MKLshKUJa4m6aqTSGn4XQgKao06wKvvreKpB8w@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36q+7L7=7m_TgFJL5BN1ryM=9Kgb3sND1Rw+Pmza5OVYQ@mail.gmail.com> <DD003840-92D2-4878-B1CC-CDCB18FA527B@gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB42459C7A22F5AF2F1AB75CD1AE320@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zjnzlQq1VYscuuOeroOebnKldWs>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
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, 08 May 2019 18:13:45 -0000

Ron,

> <adding the SPRING mailing list, because this is a SPRING draft>
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Sections 4.4 through 4.12 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-00 define a set of SIDs that have the following things in common:
> 
> - they are consumed by the egress node (SL == 0)
> - they tell the egress node how to forward the payload into a VPN
> 
> If the payload is IPv4, the next-header value in the SRH must be IP4 (value 4).
> If the payload is IPv6, the next-header value in the SRH must be IPv6 (value 41).
> If the payload is Ethernet, the next-header value in the SRH must be No Next Header (value 59).
> 
> In the interest of consistency, we should probably allocate a new next-header value for Ethernet and use it.

It's a fairly precious name space though.
What would a general IP stack do with an Ethernet frame? It's kind of a neat feature that "IP processing terminates here".
Or are we going to specify Ethernet over IP?

Cheers,
Ole