Brian,
Many thanks for having another look to the draft. Please see inline [PC].
Thank you,
Pablo.
-----Original Message-----
From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 11 December 2019 at 23:06
To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06.txt
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.
PC: This occurs when we use the reduced SRH as described in:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26#section-4.1.1
If you think this sentence does not reflect that, I can edit it for the next
revision of the draft.
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].
PC: PSP executes at the segment that is the Destination Address.
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.
PC: This has already been discussed in the past in the SPRING mailer.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Q3MYlGDQs5MO-dOFOZJUx2hHni4
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
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
