[bess] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 21 January 2021 07:20 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193FE3A0EDF; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:20:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd@ietf.org, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, matthew.bocci@nokia.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161121365458.7173.470020047466412216@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:20:55 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/AFe-yg_FXXes1z4EEg3EYnsvFIw>
Subject: [bess] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:20:55 -0000
Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [ meta ] * I appreciate the attempt to explicitly discuss handling NS/NA messages with not-previously-seen options. Thank you for that. It seems to me, however, that the proposed approach to proceed with setting the current capabilities in concrete but point to things like "unicast-forward" as a relief valve, even though 3.2-f seems to say the multicast packets (i.e. on cache miss) should be discarded (implying the unicast mapping might never be learned in the first place?). [ general ] * When a PE reboots, should it do MLD (e.g. 2710, 3810, ...) of some kind to gather critical state so that it doesn't have to wait for CEs to have problems? [ section 3.1 ] * To my knowledge there is no concept in IPv6 of a link where anycast/O=0 NAs only propagate partway through a broadcast domain. In practice, if I understand the architecture correctly, O=0 NAs will propagate to all CEs "behind" a given PE but, if anycast=false, no further. This could lead to a difficult to debug scenario (though I admit this is probably quite rare). Note that 4861-7.2.4 implies that most nodes sending NAs for their own addresses will adhere to "the Override flag SHOULD be set to one". This is not a MUST, though. Dropping all O=0 NAs might affect some implementations that don't comply with this SHOULD. I have no idea how many implementations this might affect (in practice, I suspect none?), but... I think it might need to be considered. [ section 3.1.1/3.2 ] * I was not able to understand what the typical disposition of the O bit is supposed to be in these proxied NAs. Is the intent to default to O=0 so that local O=1 can be preferred (vis. 4861-7.2.4 and 4389)? Or will it more typically be set to O=1 (as if just replaying the NA that was learned by another PE)? [ section 3.2 ] * Item (f) as currently written would break Enhanced DAD (RFC 7527), would it not? [ section 3.6 ] * "Duplicate IP Detection for IPv6 SHOULD be disabled when IPv6 'anycast' is activated in a given EVI." This doesn't seem like the right response to me. It should be okay to keep doing DAD for O=1 addresses regardless of the setting of this 'anycast' option, I would have thought. [ section 5.5 ] * I think that recommending Reply Sub-Functions discard NS packets of unexpected for means, in practice, no new NS option or flag can ever really be made to work. The PE(s) serving the CE(s) that make "new NS" solicitations will all need to be upgraded, and it's not immediately clear to me that remote PEs wouldn't also need to be upgraded (to support a possible "new NA"in response). If this is in fact likely to be the operational reality then I think this limitation probably needs to be noted explicitly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [[ comments ]] [ section 3.1.1 ] * " ... If no ARP/ND Extended Community is received, the PE will add a configured R Flag/O Flag to the entry. This configured R Flag SHOULD be an administrative choice with a default value of 1." This reads as though the R flag should be added essentially by default? I realize that might seem reasonable on a broadcast domain populated by almost entirely by routers but it might cause confusion w.r.t. any hosts/servers added to the broadcast domain. It seems like it might be better if the flags were always learned reliably, propagated reliably, and never presumed? I guess a host being mistaken for a router that never actually sends an RA doesn't cause any real problems in other nodes' ND tables. I would think, though, that if R were presumed to be 0 then it would force R bit learning and propagation to be made to work reliably and be more easily detected if it doesn't. [ section 5.6 ] * Saying that anycast is not a requirement for IXPs seems like maybe a bit presumptuous speaking for all IXPs (maybe someone wants an anycast on-link NTP/PTP service?). Perhaps just say that it's not /typically/ a requirement for IXPs? [[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * "BD: Broadcast Domain" is listed twice. [ section 2.2 ] * s/go worse/grow worse/, perhaps [ section 3.1 ] * s/to the all/to all/
- [bess] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-ev… Erik Kline via Datatracker
- Re: [bess] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-bes… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-bes… Erik Kline
- Re: [bess] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-bes… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)