So, I've tried to look at this with fresh eyes, and thanks for the
various updates and clarifications.

(I'm still not on the SPRING list so please leave me in CC.)

I remain a bit puzzled. First, a quote from the SRH specification
(draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26):

> 4.2.  Transit Node
> 
>    As specified in [RFC8200], the only node allowed to inspect the
>    Routing Extension Header (and therefore the SRH), is the node
>    corresponding to the DA of the packet.  Any other transit node MUST
>    NOT inspect the underneath routing header and MUST forward the packet
>    toward the DA according to its IPv6 routing table.

Next, a quote from the current draft:

>    SRH[n]: A shorter representation of Segment List[n], as defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
> 
>    When a packet is intercepted on a wire, it is possible that SRH[SL]
>    is different from the DA.

Huh? That would be extremely unusual in the normal interpretation
of a routing header, where is RH[SL] is by definition the next
destination where the RH will be processed. Any other node is a transit
node, and I don't see anything in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26
that allows for anything else. So it seems to me that the quoted statement
needs an explanation of why it isn't a violation of
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26, not to mention why it's useful.

That leads us back to:

> 4.16.1.  PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH
> 
>    The SRH processing of the End, End.X and End.T behaviors are
>    modified: after the instruction "S14.  Update IPv6 DA with Segment
>    List[Segments Left]" is executed, the following instructions must be
>    executed as well:
> 
>  S14.1.   If (Segments Left == 0) {
>  S14.2.      Update the Next Header field in the preceding header to the
>                 Next Header value of the SRH
>  S14.3.      Decrease the IPv6 header Payload Length by the Hdr Ext Len
>                 value of the SRH
>  S14.4.      Remove the SRH from the IPv6 extension header chain
>  S14.5.   }

This is clearly a breach of RFC8200, but it can never be reached if
DA == SRH[SL]. 

The operation "4.16.2.  USP: Ultimate Segment Pop of the SRH" seems like
a pointless variant on "4.16.3.  USD: Ultimate Segment Decapsulation", 
since the packet has reached its destination anyway and will presumably
be decapsulated anyway. 

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 12-Dec-19 08:54, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking WG of 
> the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : SRv6 Network Programming
>         Authors         : Clarence Filsfils
>                           Pablo Camarillo Garvia
>                           John Leddy
>                           Daniel Voyer
>                           Satoru Matsushima
>                           Zhenbin Li
>       Filename        : draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06.txt
>       Pages           : 39
>       Date            : 2019-12-11
> 
> Abstract:
>    The SRv6 Network Programming framework enables a network operator or
>    an application to specify a packet packet processing program by
>    encoding a sequence of instructions in the IPv6 packet header.
> 
>    Each instruction is implemented on one or several nodes in the
>    network and identified by an SRv6 Segment Identifier in the packet.
> 
>    This document defines the SRv6 Network Programming concept and
>    specifies the base set of SRv6 behaviors that enables the creation of
>    interoperable overlays with underlay optimization (Service Level
>    Agreements).
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to