Re: [Anima-bootstrap] mDNS or GRASP? [was: peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 19 October 2016 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B09129579 for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 NMPYAaYzXbco for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9748B12955F for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id s8so21316690pfj.2 for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YHG2/dhxuY7hzEgOYBuDV4oj3c3NkH4d/two+gWWhkQ=; b=rmuXb9criy/wRK8K/UFKPOMcrm70pqWfkgzsjVqvZ+gcn3pQfdIiu/kX+DBg0PcLaf y96hzFvnYqdvqK81LISGY+zt3Rp2/JVcE8VhpzFK1Vvk4mntxFgyp5BlirGsB1p7h8Cu XTEz50ncu+mF/qR82VKmDzifSdIKXlQflY08PwUyV9Uenuiodm/YTq+feEJ9bJdzPijN kpYAPT4sQHz00VAYFiAEDoaq5Z3LUeL4d7z4DaJeq7FtkXShiyWcgZtKa2Ktt8Tzjlm+ nMQ+g4Cx26qmsqm/9SFEmK8UYgrypwV9wenxhcdTKrubSa206mL/DtMVSq4IEYoVzLOq MxfA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YHG2/dhxuY7hzEgOYBuDV4oj3c3NkH4d/two+gWWhkQ=; b=GpGM42dPKo4G7TssV99zHNSdE+ySKqbaKqoWca/tfHNuDdIoYxgPyD+Y5RhmJiiN1r ikz71+N180I4hhLySVCHXGWAh61VzQzk05K6mkW1wBsgK+Nk4WUQjuV6hpKl1XgECJtM 8Gqn3TNpyto/ieNqB0eTTUlZVecH4XcxmBCQzO8KyftNNMiW1BdN63eCHWh7aTvP1Lbn 4OTalw+iCwpgusN2eLYbwsAgFV/Kdzp/Mew+XwgD0AJp582Gu5+r4kDkOQqeQX6rCI5A h0vgMCIa/zg9fNFvRtRXpQH/urfx6KxUBSbmEgrOFi91FtmS/98JoVLIM6O3iaSog88I h+qA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnnjtaEYFdF0Nq9kaBURXNleWKTQBVLKDMhfwKx/S0v1gkNJoltrFlv8SlfIZEoiw==
X-Received: by 10.99.51.15 with SMTP id z15mr11849992pgz.41.1476907216711; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] ([118.148.125.82]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v73sm65801161pfd.63.2016.10.19.13.00.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>, "Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <pritikin@cisco.com>
References: <a17cad7df0fa43adb70c0e3c33bbe201@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <a135a1d8-8951-abfc-6d52-b98daaca305a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:00:19 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a17cad7df0fa43adb70c0e3c33bbe201@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-bootstrap/TO2CXOg5sBssAGDu6QHdCJpc3mA>
Cc: "anima-bootstrap@ietf.org" <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] mDNS or GRASP? [was: peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]]
X-BeenThere: anima-bootstrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the bootstrap design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-bootstrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-bootstrap/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:00:20 -0000

Snipping...
On 19/10/2016 20:35, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 18 October 2016 21:46

...
>>> "peer" is an entry in the adjacency table. Yes, there may be several on an
>> interface, of several different domains. The adjacency table discussion tries
>> to capture that.
>>
>> Fair enough. But anyway my comment still applies: a node that is joining the
>> ACP, or simply updating its ACP adjacencies, will discover all available
>> neighbors...
> 
> True. But why is that a problem, or what are you suggesting because of this? 
> (I think I got lost in the arguments here)

No, no problem, I was just trying to be clear about what you meant.

...
> We need a discovery protocol. 
> We should use the same discovery protocol for BRSKI and ACP (and other actions later on, see my message a few mins ago)
> GRASP *could* be that protocol, in the way you describe. 
> But my understanding was that we had settled on using mDNS for this discovery. 
> 
> In the bootstrap calls, this was "decided", see
> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/anima-boostrapping?useMonospaceFont=true
> Notes from 2016-10-04, bullet 3 (currently, lines 175-178):  
>  
> <include from etherpad>
> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-03#section-3.1.1 does not specify a GRASP mechanism for proxy discovery, should it?
> 
> max feels, "no" because defining an insecure mode of GRASP is difficult.

Which was tru in Berlin but is now wrong; the insecure instances are defined in GRASP -07.

> mcr feels, "no" because discovery by multicast UDP but replys are by TCP which means the new node needs to open a TCP port to get a reply back. We just had a long conversation about TCP/UDP etc (re flipping the handshake) and this adds more confusion.

Which is resolved in the GRASP -08 candidate text after that conversation, and in running code.
(And also, in the "flood" model for proxy discovery, TCP doesn't even arise, so this
argument is doubly wrong.)

> group conclusion: close this. "No". (agreement on the call is noted; with toerless voting for grasp but accepting the group decision)
> </include> 

I don't get up in the middle of the night for those calls, and I don't accept that decision.

We should not *require* mDNS in Anima. I can see that it will be needed in some non-Anima
deployments of BRSKI. I thought we had actually resolved that in Berlin. Proxies can be
discovered with mDNS or GRASP. I've posted demo code for link-local discovery of proxies
by pledges using two different GRASP models - flooding or discovery/synchronization.
I'd like comments on those models. As noted above, the flooding model is UDP only.

https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/graspy/brski/README.txt

    Brian