Re: I-D Action: draft-vyncke-6man-segment-routing-security-00.txt

"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Fri, 11 July 2014 08:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC561A03A0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cgl3Yntdv2bw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C40B91A0392 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2201; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1405067765; x=1406277365; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=/f90O8Lp46wC1r9VPEWDYklGXcGMMgb0No+9iSgxVrE=; b=P1evr+kg982Y929F7JsWniECzGwhYacNHUpeGPaiHgiauhXlldbe4n1/ ddIj0c+DzJrbBk/6tEYddh3ODuJyyLOlOOUeiv/P8ByErwlYJq16YtrtU IQnhgWbnqa39o5g9wx1fw8kBn5v2Vm/1HtWFK2uQMp1ZdDmKcn8vQG79/ 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AloFAEqhv1OtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgw5SWsBoCodCAYELFnWEAwEBAQMBAQEBNzQLEAIBCBgeECcLJQIEDgWIOggNxlATBI9GB4MtgRYFmwWUG4NEgjA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,642,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="339243016"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2014 08:36:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6B8ZhOQ032180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:35:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.24]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 03:35:43 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-vyncke-6man-segment-routing-security-00.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-vyncke-6man-segment-routing-security-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPnOMauVU2QqzUP0eHD2Rv42A+eA==
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:35:42 +0000
Message-ID: <2DEFC6B9-0978-4EB0-9B79-9F774450D7FC@cisco.com>
References: <20140703134709.19452.78442.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53BF5A67.7050401@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53BF5A67.7050401@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.206.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <408EDE1C9B1F684B956C226F5DD7E208@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/trGTFFgMikBCN8k12CZiRZbFqBU
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:35:46 -0000

On Jul 11, 2014, at 5:30 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This draft says:
> 
>>   The SRH is simply another version of the routing header as described
>>   in [RFC2460] and is:
>> 
>>   o  inserted when entering the segment routing domain which could be
>>      done by a node or by a router;
> 
> There is no provision for routers to insert headers in an IPv6 packet,
> because this changes the packet size (and the payload length) and
> therefore breaks PMTU mechanisms. Only the host that originates a packet
> can insert headers.
> 
> It seems that draft-previdi-6man-segment-routing-header-01 has the
> same problem. It says:
> 
>>   When creating the SRH (either at ingress node or in the SDN
>>   controller) the following is done:
>> 
>>      Next Header and Hdr Ext Len fields are set according to [RFC2460].
>> 
>>      Routing Type field is set as TBD (SRH).
>> 
>>      The DA of the packet is set with the address of the FIRST segment
>>      of the path.
> 
> (etc.)
> 
> These are operations that can only be done by the host that creates
> the IPv6 packet, which is also the only place that a fragment header
> can be included if needed. As I understand it, the "ingress node" is
> a router, not the originating host. So this seems to be broken.


well, unless the multiple interoperable implementations we have are 
also broken, I can tell you (and show you) it's a reality that works 
well, that address a set of requirements (especially in terms of 
service chaining) and "routers" can happily insert extensions headers.

Now, let's agree on the definition of "router". If it's a device 
acting at layer 3 and that "routes" packets based on DA and FIB 
instructions, then it is obvious that a router can insert an SRH.

However, it is also obvious that we do not expect core routers do so.

s.


> 
>   Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------