+1

If we allocate a /16 for SRv6 USIDs, as proposed in 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt,
we can allow that prefix only when the new ethertype is used.

                                                                                
  Ron

From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Krzysztof Szarkowicz
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 5:30 AM
To: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.i...@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk>; Andrew Alston - IETF 
<andrew-ietf=40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org>; int-a...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 
Dr. Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for 
draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

SRv6 packet might have SRH, but might not have SRH. Especially with uSID, you 
can craft a decent SR-TE SRv6 packet without SRH. So I think, Kireetis’ 
comments should apply to all SRv6 packets (with/without SRH).

—
Krzysztof


On 2023 -Mar-29, at 17:57, Tony Przygienda 
<tonysi...@gmail.com<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Though I would like to cheer for Kireeti's 2. as well I think the point of 
SHOULD is more realistic (for now) as Joel points out ...

As to ethertype, I think grown-ups in the room were since long time drily 
observing that a new IP version would have been appropriate after enough 
contortions-of-it's-an-IPv6-address-sometimes-and-sometimes-not-and-sometimes-only-1/4
 were performed with drafts whose authors' list length sometimes rivaled pages 
of content ;-)  I think this ship has sailed and that's why after some 
discussions with Andrew we went the ether type route as more realistic. 
Additionally, yes, lots encaps (not encodings) carrying SRv6 should get new 
codepoints if we are really serious about trusted domains here.

And folks who went the MPLS curve know that none of this is new, same curve was 
walked roughly (though smoother, no'one was tempted to "hide label stack in 
extension headers" ;-) and it would go a long way if deploying secure SRv6 
becomes as simple as *not* switching on "address family srv6" on an interface 
until needed and then relying on BGP-LU (oops ;-) to build according lookup 
FIBs for SRv6 instead of going in direction of routers becoming massive 
wildcard matching and routing header processing firewalls ...

--- tony



On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:33 PM Kireeti Kompella 
<kireeti.i...@gmail.com<mailto:kireeti.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mar 28, 2023, at 11:24, Adrian Farrel 
<adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:

[Spring cc’ed because, well, you know, SR. I wonder whether 6man and 6ops 
should care as well.]

SPRING cc’ed because, you know, replying to Adrian’s email.  Agree that 6man 
and 6ops [sh|w]ould be interested.


tl;dr
I think this is a good initiative and worth discussion. Thanks
for the draft.

Agree.  In particular:
1. There is an acknowledged security problem. Might be worth summarizing, as it 
is central to this draft, but an example is in rfc 8402/section 8. Section 3 of 
this draft (“The SRv6 Security Problem”) doesn’t actually describe the security 
problem; Section 5 does, briefly.

2. The solution (using a new EtherType, SRv6-ET) is a good one.  It’s sad that 
this wasn’t done from the get-go, as the solution is a bit “evil bit”-ish.  I’d 
prefer to see ALL SRv6 packets (i.e., those containing SRH) use SRv6-ET.  
Boundary routers SHOULD drop packets with SRv6-ET that cross the boundary in 
either direction; all routers MUST drop packets with SRH that don’t have 
SRv6-ET. Yeah, difficult, but the added security is worth it.

3. Ease of secure deployment is a major consideration; this draft is a big step 
in that direction.

4. As Adrian said, several nits.  Will send separately to authors.

Kireeti


_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GGgCymh1gmvxc7ibG9cWpBOm73ewlZbNJjAA4xw8KNZFBMd9ROvcdT5tCSooD-OCMYFWheicbBfDrzfTkoY7bGn7W65rg0E$>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring



Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to