IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - OAM

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B52363A181D; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:56:15 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 TgNz4qK-eKtS; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 6B3193A161E; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml723-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 967B05E7EE64CE581432; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:56:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from msceml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.143) by lhreml723-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:56:12 +0100
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:56:11 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:56:11 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org" <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - OAM
Thread-Index: AdZj+M7rylVBEZ48S5ifVJiJzMekB///0ZqA///Ln6A=
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:56:11 +0000
Message-ID: <16647bab75e0466794ab711b960770fd@huawei.com>
References: <ab6cb83e1ed74a63a494c83f63c9d371@huawei.com> <556c9c3a-b8e5-eb3d-cecb-dfe66cf98ac2@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <556c9c3a-b8e5-eb3d-cecb-dfe66cf98ac2@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.200.156]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VBCCoJPGFsCjmVNaHTcLXO6o6LU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - OAM
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:56:16 -0000

Hi Fernando,
May be me misunderstood the point of the draft in 1st place.
I do see it as a warning list for potential issues that admin should research a little deeper before he/she would enable some EHs.
IMHO: You could be very brief about solutions (because draft could bloat to the size on Internet), but the list of all issues to check should be more or less full.
Or it would be small value from the draft. IMHO.
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com] 
Sent: 27 июля 2020 г. 12:46
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - OAM

Eduard,

On 27/7/20 06:30, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> The more messages I have sent to you - the less confident I am in the next one comment, but anyway.

?


> 1. All these new staff would need more OAM tools. May be such simple as "ping for SRv6", may be much more complicated (is anything exist to ping BIER data plane?). Network Admin (or Planning department) should research what is available for the tools that they have decided to activate.
> 2. Some EH are not practical without proper OSS tools (example: iFit)
> IMHO: it could be one additional section X (numbering in the root).
> It is probably very relevant, because draft has "v6ops" in the middle of the name.

I'm not sure what's the point you are raising.

Essentially, operators employ devices that need to access L-4 information for doing a bunch of things (EMCP, enforcing ACLs, etc.). 
The structure of IPv6 packets makes accessing such information challenging. In some cases, devices are unable to access such information. In other cases, they might be able to do so provided the packet goes through the slow-path (all this depending, to some extent, on the EH-chain length). Ultimately, in many of these cases (if not all), operators have no other option than to drop the offending packets.

This is a general issue of IPv6 EHs.

Yes, depending on the tools you might need support for this or that. BUt how does that change the discussion we're having in the document?

Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email