Re: [Anima] GRASP ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 28 April 2020 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E12A3A0D1F for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 XuSNQpgMyS5K for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DF7F3A0D1B for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A57238981; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 22:52:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D45B10E; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 22:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
cc: anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <cd3bc2ff-00d2-242d-1b90-27c5c71fd317@joelhalpern.com>
References: <30733.1588000580@localhost> <5900.1588002250@localhost> <d99d1741-e6c0-3653-2815-4918edcd1e33@gmail.com> <2714.1588025685@localhost> <cd3bc2ff-00d2-242d-1b90-27c5c71fd317@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 22:54:21 -0400
Message-ID: <348.1588042461@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/_IPV4pIi3WgYZBYg9_DIU0eXJ3M>
Subject: Re: [Anima] GRASP ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 02:54:27 -0000

Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
    > I suspect that for most GRASP purposes, even if there is a layer 2 network
    > between the parties,  we are not much worried about how LAG handles GRASP
    > packets?   If we care about that, then the source port should be randomized
    > between flows, and stable for sequences of related messages.

The idea being that the different 5-tuples would wind up on different links
of the LAG, correct?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I think we don't care, because GRASP traffic density should be quite
    > modest so load balancing isn't really an issue. In response to Michael,
    > I don't think the source port matters at all for M_FLOOD messages. My
    > code uses the o/s default, but it has no significance to the
    > recipient.

I agree with Brian: the DULL message is basically just a probe sent every few
seconds.  The bulk traffic would run over IPsec, so there will be an ESP SPI#.
How would a LAG flow balancer deal with that?  I don't think it would balance
at all unless two SAs were negotiated.  I think that the flow header could
also be tweaked in some kind of round robin fashion.

But, if it's a MC-LAG, then the ACP really wants to see both chassis
seperately.  So it occurs to me that we could hack LACP rather than LLDP :-)
It appears that it uses a specific multicast destination.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-