Given this note from the 6man leadership, and its indication of more
information by the middle of next week, I am going to leave the adoption
call open till we get that information. If their update is
significantly delayed, I will have to decide what to do next.
Assuming they do update us, I will see what that update does to the
adoption call.
Before I sign off, i want to explicitly thank all the working group
participants who have responded to and discussed this adoption call.
Whatever the difficulty of resolving this and finding a rough consensus,
I very much appreciate and value the engagement. It is what makes the
IETF work.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern, SPRING co-Chair
On 10/14/2021 1:04 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
Joel,
Thank you for your email. The ADs and chairs have been discussing.
One thing that would be very helpful to our discussions would be some
worked examples of the various C-SID behaviors, showing some SRv6
datagrams and what happens to their contents as they move across some
suitable example SR domain.
(It would also be helpful if they showed what happens to something like
an ICMPv6 Echo Request to a representative Destination Address in these
cases when, say, an SRH is not present, i.e. to see when typical unicast
semantics are preserved or when something more like anycast or multicast
behavior is to be expected.)
Assuming some forthcoming helpful examples, we have a goal to get a more
complete answer back to you by the latter half of next week.
Thanks,
-Erik
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:53 PM Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
The SPRING working group is in the midst of an adoption call on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/>.
The SPRING charter has text that is explicit that modifications to data
planes and architectures standardized by other working groups may
not be
modified in SPRING unless the chairs and ADs responsible for that data
plane and / or architecture agree.
To complete the context, as my SPRING co-chairs are co-authors on the
document in question, they have recused themselves from decisional
activities regarding the document. Therefore, this message is coming
just from my as the responsible SPRING co-chair managing this
adoption call.
As you have seen, multiple questions have been raised about the
relationship of the document to the IPv6 defined data plane and
architecture (particularly RFC 4291 and 8200). In particular the
questions seem to revolve around what the document describes as the
NEXT-C-SID flavor of compressed SID, and its relationship to the IPv6
standards. (For those seeking more context without reading the full
document, a paraphrase and simplification of the NEXT-C_SID flavor is
provided as a postscript.)
I raised the question of concurrence as required by the SPRING charter
with the Internet ADs and SPRING chairs. They quite reasonably
asked me
to write a note to 6man explaining the concerns as clearly as a can, so
that they can then determine how to proceed.
The questions that prompted my inquiry are:
1) Does the placement of a list of sids in the IPv6 DA field change the
IPv6 architectural description of that field.
2) Does the operation of shifting information around in the IPv6
destination address field represent a modification or extension of the
IPv6 data plane.
On a related note, the document in question also defines two other
flavors, REPLACE-C-SID, and NEXT-and-REPLACE-C-SID. The
NEXT-and-REPLACE-C_SID flavor is defined to include the NEXT-C_SID
flavor operation, so seems to be affected by the same question.
From my own reading, it appears that the REPLACE-C-SID flavor does
not
raise issues requiring 6man leadership concurrence.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern for the SPRING working group
PS:
Clearly, understanding the question requires some understanding of what
the NEXT-C_SID flavor does. This explanation is a simplification for
length and context. Really, the best place to understand it is the
draft. However, to give you enough information to let you decide
whether you care, I will try to provide a fair summary. My
apologies in
advance to the authors for necessary liberties for length. Also,
discussion of the draft contents (as distinct from the interaction with
the IPv6 data plane and architecture) belongs on the SPRING list, and
should not clutter up 6man.
SIDs are the identifiers used in segment routing.
In SRv6, as document in the current RFCs, these are 128 bits. As
defined in the relevant RFCs, SIDs which identify endpoints to which
packets are directed are identified by endpoint SIDs. These can have
behaviors (decapsulate and forward is one example). They can have
flavors such as where the SRH is removed.
The topic under discussion is means to compress these SIDs in the
packets on the wire. The document under discussion provides three
flavors of compression.
The fundamental mechanism of the draft is to use a single SRH entry
as a
container for multiple SIDs. In the NEXT-C_SID mechanism, when it is
first encountered the entire container is copied into the desination
address of the IPv6 packet. The container has a common routing prefix
used for all the NEXT-C-SID SIDs. It is followed by a sequence of
compressed SIDs of a configured length. One could configure 16, 24, or
32 bits. Or whatever length. The routing advertisements are arranged
so that the IPv6 packet is directed to the node represented by the
first
compressed SID on the basis of longest prefix match matching the
combination of the common routing prefix and that compressed SID.
When the packet arrives at that node, it looks up the configured
portion, the compressed SID, and determines the behavior and
flavor. In
the case of the NEXT-C-SID flavor, the resulting operation is to shift
the entire remaining contents of the IPv6 address (the bits past the
first compressed sid) so as to over-write the first compressed SID. 0
bits are shifted into the low order positions. If the result is a
non-zero new first compressed SID, then the packets is forwarded and
the
process repeats. When all that is left are 0s, if there is an SRH, it
is consulted to find the next SRH entry, which is, per normal SRv6
processing, put into the IPv6 DA.
Note that in the common case where the SIDS needed all fit in to a
single container, the analysis also assumes the use of the reduced
encapsulation options which omits the SRH that is not needed as it
would
have no entries. This the packet contains a normal IPv6 header, with a
sequence of compressed SIDs (what one might or might not call a source
route) in the IPv6 destination address field.
PPS: If the authors of the NEXT-C-SID flavor feel I have
mis-represented
the work, please, send clarifications or corrections. Again, the best
source of information is the draft itself. I was asked to provide
extra
context in this email.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
