Weibin,
Thanks for your careful review and for this very insightful question. It does
require some explanation.
Yes, all SIDs have node-local significance. This includes SIDs that represent
strictly-routed segments as well as SIDs that represent loosely-routed
segments.
The text that you quote below, about loosely-routed SIDs having domain-wide
significance, has been deleted from the currently posted version of
draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr.
And now for the explanation......
A SID is examined and processed by exactly one node (i.e., the ingress node of
the segment that the SID represents). Therefore, even if an operator were to
assign SIDs as if they had more global significance, they would still have
node-local significance. That's all they need, because each SID is examined and
processed by exactly one node.
Pursuing your question further, draft-bonica-lsr-isis-crh-extensions describes
a mechanism that causes all loosely-routed segments terminating at a particular
node to have the same SID. While this facilitates configuration and debugging,
it is not strictly required. A controller could assign SIDs some other way and
routing would still work.
An analogy might make this argument more palatable. Imagine a network operator
that makes heavy use of IPv6 link-local addresses. In order to facilitate
debugging, the operator configures IPv6 link-local addresses as if they had
domain-wide significance. While this discipline may be significant and even
useful to the network operator, it is coldly unnoticed by network devices.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 9:43 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Bob Hinden <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>; IPv6 List
<[email protected]>; Mark Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus
Hi Ron:
According to following part of section#5 in srv6+ draft,
+++
SIDs have node-local significance. This means that a segment ingress
node MUST identify each segment that it originates with a unique SID.
However, a SID that is used by one segment ingress node to identify a
segment that it originates can be used by another segment ingress
node to identify another segment.
+++
Does it mean All type of SID have node-local significance in this draft? If I
am correct, I think it is conflict with the content about SID type in your
another draft "CRH", the loosely routed SID must have domain-wide significance.
The following sentences is from draft section 5 of CRH.
++++
Loosely routed SIDs have domain-wide significance. This means that
within a CRH domain, a loosely routed SID MUST map to exactly one
IPv6 address. By contrast, strictly routed SIDs have node-local
significance. This means that within a CRH domain, one node can map
a strictly routed SID to one address while another node maps the same
strictly routed SID to a different address. See Appendix A for an
example.
+++++++
--------------------------------------
Thank you !
WANG Weibin
-----Original Message-----
From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: 2019年7月9日 6:29
To: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>; IPv6 List
<[email protected]>; Mark Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] Comments on draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus
Bob,
SR encodings that require 128-bytes of overhead consume excessive bandwidth:
- on network links
- in ASICS
While the former is interesting, the later is probably more significant. In
order to process at high speeds, ASICs need to access the entire IPv6 header
chain. So, they copy the header chain, including all extension headers, from
buffer memory to on-chip memory. As the number of bytes in the header chain
increases, so does the cost of that copy. And the longer the header chain, the
less accessible the technology becomes to low-cost ASICs.
So, the most significant benefit may be in keeping that copy under 128 bytes.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2019 5:42 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Mark Smith <[email protected]>; Tom
Herbert <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>; IPv6 List
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus
Ron,
> On Jul 6, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> In my experience, operators object when SR overhead consumes more than 80
> bytes. Also, I have encountered two classes of operator:
What is special about 80? Why not 64, 128, 256?
Bob
>
> • Those who avoid strictly-routed segments
> • Those who rely heavily on strictly-routed segments
>
> Those who avoid strictly-routed segments rarely generate SID Lists that
> contain more than 8 entries. So, they are generally OK with 32-bit encoding.
> This is because with 32-bit encoding, the total SR overhead is exactly 80
> bytes (i.e., 40 bytes for the IPv6 header and 40 bytes for the CRH).
>
> By contrast, those who rely on strictly-routed segments regularly generate
> SID Lists that contain more than 8 entries. So, they are generally required
> 16-bit encoding.
>
> IMHO, the operator understands its needs better than we do. We should support
> both. Let the operator decide at run time.
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
> From: Mark Smith <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 9:08 PM
> To: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>;
> 6man WG <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus
>
>
>
> On Thu., 4 Jul. 2019, 06:06 Tom Herbert, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:44 PM Ron Bonica <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > On Friday, I will update draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr. It will contain a
> > section on mutability. It will say:
> >
> > - the Segments Left field is mutable
> > - every other field in the CRH is immutable
> >
> > I will also update draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt and
> > draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt. Both of those request an IANA option type
> > with the CHG bit equal to 0. So they are both immutable.
> >
> > SID encoding isn't entirely opportunistic. Since the last IETF, we realized
> > that it would be burdensome for every vendor to support all three SID
> > lengths. So, we said that implementations MUST support 32-bit encoding and
> > MAY support 16 bit encoding. (We dropped 8-bit encoding entirely).
>
> This sounds dicey from an interoperability and flexibility point of
> view. Supposed I've deployed a network where everyone is using 16 bits
> SIDs. But, then for some reason I need to switch vendors for a small
> part of the network and their implementation doesn't support 16 bits.
> Do I need to up the MSV and make all SIDs to be 32 bits just on the
> off chance that one of the new nodes might be in some SID list?
>
> >
> > A side effect of this decision is that a node should only send CRH's with
> > 16-bit encoding every other node in the domain supports 16-bit encoding..
> > So, network operators will need to configure the SID length on each node,
> > with the default being 32.
>
> Well, in light the above problem, I have to wonder if it's better to
> only support 32 bits. The leap from 128 bits to 32 bits is much more
> consequential than going from 32 to 16 bits. Other than that, it
> simplifies the protocol, reduces support and test matrix, ensures
> interoperability, etc.
>
> One single size is much better.
>
> I think most people will pick the larger size, regardless of their functional
> SID space need, to avoid the possibility of getting it wrong and then having
> to do a lot of after hours and possibly service impacting work in the future
> to expand from the smaller to larger size.
>
> Implementations would also be simpler, so less opportunities for
> implementation bugs.
>
> It also means no possibility of configuration errors because the size is a
> constant rather than a settable parameter.
>
> A lot of the principles in RFC 5505 - "Principles of Internet Host
> Configuration" - seem to me to be equally applicable to network interior
> protocols.
>
> For example, I think the whole of "2.1. Minimize Configuration" fully applies
> here.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
>
>
> Tom
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 2:48 PM
> > To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
> > Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]>; 6man WG <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Comments on draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > Thanks for the draft.
> >
> > I think the name SRV6+ might be a little misleading in that it could
> > be misinterpreted as SRV6+ being a superset of SRV6. Specifically,
> > SRV6+ doesn't allow 128 bit SIDs which seems inherent in SRV6 and so
> > the primary function (and implementation) of SRV6 isn't compatible. It
> > doesn't seem like it would be that much effort to allow a 128 bit SID size
> > to be compatible.
> >
> > I don't understand the rationale for needing a MSV to be explictly
> > configured throughout the domain. Couldn't the appropriate SID size be
> > chosen by the sender at run time. For instance, if all the SIDs in a list
> > are less than 65,536 then 16 bit SIDs can be used, else 32 bit SIDs are
> > used (I assume 16 and 32 bit SIDs are in same number space).
> > Since CRH has the bits stating the SID length there is no ambiguity at the
> > receiver. SID compression is opportunistic and it's always good practice to
> > avoid situations that require wide scale renumbering.
> >
> > Please add a section on mutability requirements of protocol fields so that
> > there is no ambiguity.
> >
> > Tom
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail
> man_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzo
> CI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=XHBhblXqRPQ3B3MXrgW
> aaG5S1rpL19W91khadzRJuQ8&s=MGMGhXEDBq7Aavhxrondm1PNtstBKgZ3_TaRPtXUvEc
> &e=
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail
> man_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzo
> CI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=XHBhblXqRPQ3B3MXrgW
> aaG5S1rpL19W91khadzRJuQ8&s=MGMGhXEDBq7Aavhxrondm1PNtstBKgZ3_TaRPtXUvEc
> &e=
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_spring&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=XHBhblXqRPQ3B3MXrgWaaG5S1rpL19W91khadzRJuQ8&s=aH7JIfGqjIdUmQdymQ0duOdskRuPtn7VDHCMAY6EJFs&e=
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
