Re: [6lo] draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery: Send a FULL bitmap when datagram is complete?

Martine Lenders <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de> Wed, 23 October 2019 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6F1120271 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 05:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jB6--8TbCZ6M for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 05:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8252120154 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) for 6lo@ietf.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (envelope-from <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>) id <1iNG1q-003IcI-AI>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 14:46:18 +0200
Received: from mail-ot1-f49.google.com ([209.85.210.49]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) for 6lo@ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (envelope-from <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>) id <1iNG1n-001STA-Vk>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 14:46:18 +0200
Received: by mail-ot1-f49.google.com with SMTP id z6so17285146otb.2 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 05:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWqt+VohCpCJwcgaV1mwCGet0kp2GunPmO65PLBzsGn+IRgt4f eLOrWu+hdiUg+0aP75EI50SwOXxGcIUcJAPdGAc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwKujrzY755TG1caV1ZerkYzY6CYpYjoBv0lrD93d85P5VC5O1dgl0ejLYVtzpsmZ/ZCbIN2zKYlkCEZY97F24=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1d8f:: with SMTP id y15mr1440824oti.121.1571834774876; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 05:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALHmdRzhXsz1pNzc-cJ=+ufE3ioCXtRGkAugBSZSuyGNXE1wNg@mail.gmail.com> <515A623D-07D8-4DFD-9F8E-EB527B73EDAB@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <515A623D-07D8-4DFD-9F8E-EB527B73EDAB@cisco.com>
From: Martine Lenders <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 14:45:38 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CALHmdRwhO9_rwA5Q86x-m_4YKLaJ6D636wqBcshm+1SjEpiwZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALHmdRwhO9_rwA5Q86x-m_4YKLaJ6D636wqBcshm+1SjEpiwZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000066f98b0595934dd5"
X-Originating-IP: 209.85.210.49
X-ZEDAT-Hint: A
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/0-nmpZb4ldyiHO6SwbLBwcgn4J0>
Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery: Send a FULL bitmap when datagram is complete?
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:46:22 -0000

Hi,

Am Mi., 23. Okt. 2019 um 14:43 Uhr schrieb Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthubert@cisco.com>:

> Hello Martine
>
> I meant fragments. It can be expected that a few fragments are still in
> flight after everything is received because of end to end fragment retries
> or L2 ARQ. So the receiver must keep a state to drop them silently. But is
> it gets “too much “ of that it may be an error and the receiver should
> abort the flow.
>
> That “too much” decision is left to implementation.
>

Thank, now it is clearer!

Regards,
Martine


>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pascal
>
> Le 23 oct. 2019 à 14:29, Martine Lenders <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de> a
> écrit :
>
> 
> Hi Pascal,
>
> Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 18:14 Uhr schrieb Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> pthubert@cisco.com>:
>
>> Hello Again
>>
>>
>>
>> I reread the text and it appears that the receiver operation is too
>> implicit. I suggest to add this in the last fragment processing:
>>
>>
>>
>>     When all the fragments are received, the receiving endpoint
>> reconstructs
>>
>>     the packet, passes it to the upper layer, sends a RFRAG
>> Acknowledgment on
>>
>>     the reverse path with a FULL bitmap, and harms a short timer to absorb
>>
>>     packets that are still in flight for that datagram without creating a
>> new
>>
>>     state and abort the communication if it keeps going.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does that help?
>>
>
> If this goes somewhere in section 6, yes I think that makes it far more
> understandable.
>
>
>> Note that there’s room for an implementation to decide if it absorbs
>> silently a few packets and for how long, and when it decides to reset the
>> flow. The all 1 (to be renamed throughout to FULL)  does not help more than
>> the reset.
>>
>
> By packets you mean fragments or reassembled datagrams. I don't really
> understand what you mean by that.
>
> Best regards,
> Martine
>
>
>>
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> *Sent:* lundi 21 octobre 2019 17:29
>> *To:* Martine Lenders <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>; 6lo@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* RE: [6lo] draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery: Send a FULL
>> bitmap when datagram is complete?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry I missed that Martine!
>>
>>
>>
>> The ALL 1s was already sent when the last fragment was received. This
>> text happens later.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is supposed to have been processed along the way back. The receiving
>> end node maintains a state for a “short” time after the message processing
>> to absorb packets that may still be in flight. During that “short” time it
>> is capable to recognize redundant packets and drop them as opposed to
>> create a new state and expect the full fragment. For legitimate packets
>> still in flight the good thing would be to stay silent. If the Ack with a
>> FULL (All 1s) bitmap was lost then sending it again would be OK as you
>> point out.
>>
>>
>>
>> But there might also be error conditions, like a weird situation that the
>> FULL bitmap did not fix on its way back where the sender keeps sending. If
>> the FULL bitmap failed then retrying it may fail again. The reset is a
>> clearer indication to drop everything regardless and move to the next.
>>
>>
>>
>> Works? Should we massage text?
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>>
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Di., 1. Okt. 2019 um 16:31 Uhr schrieb Martine Lenders <
>> m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery states in section 6.3
>>
>>
>>
>> [the] might need to abort the process of a fragmented packet for internal
>> reasons, for instance if it […] considers that this packet is already fully
>> reassembled and passed to the upper layer. In that case, the receiver
>> SHOULD indicate so to the sender with a NULL bitmap in a RFRAG
>> Acknowledgment.
>>
>>
>>
>> The given example seems to me the perfect instance to set a FULL bitmap
>> instead. There is no other instance were a FULL bitmap is specified to be
>> sent, except for the case that the datagram incidentally fills out the
>> whole value space of the sequence number field.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or am I missing something?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Martine
>>
>>