Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-venaas-bier-mtud-01
Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 21:29 UTC
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBE113118E for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 HQVdW58UH7ur for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (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 72BF4131192 for <bier@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id r17-v6so22982482edo.13 for <bier@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rEIYOir079s93uAqu6TN82l1Fzp/KqTe99CKSdRI6bk=; b=w2ykGvdy2exlCfawAarRAcL7TEW9zBIJhMoTqNvyAUsRPCA6tkX2q+dTlsuHtLe2Ud DdEIzFM3iqZ0qzUlQ6kjRaiaRs/EImkP99X2hMFbYZiOWYOart5kc0PNSLBBJJnvCzk7 GpKc1+zVt9ORuHO2HjMZwzr6M+7BYRcWPMiL8+0NQfv8+SU4ZQhU1DwMiUbwxkHLE64e QVusMHASUyFWjpFoh4VmvPwzOQA5IWmUNFOh6q4wTkFnOH2bPHTs1WgUhaLqZlAuS+C+ kM/hzVQmMRiCTc2t9Ae/z3yAbU7VcRUhe71V0+hk4DCvm33CnJ7tzrf5Gv45rMTNgM8V 8jJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rEIYOir079s93uAqu6TN82l1Fzp/KqTe99CKSdRI6bk=; b=WnjiGWa4HBXQYBFAEvUykI7yyyOis565IYxZHc8CcYr01kXPPftiqibsR5GFAzXs9Y u6WLuZqAkhzoJ3RkaWPFoT7XCvP9hcjB6PkqxOnBoYXk+hbkDSQo0EIDQKvx42NKd3Rs fFCRh/0VKNSb2OIcbYnDXMHoSR7OuJs/mNoWTCszVcBolUpx1QF+izX/WihI3AXd8obR uzQfz/U7U9iVrnqKrj+/TnT/LA+e8TlWoYd2UZFDRbmvfnAXYeCH9BZLhdGRx37M44wb t3PawQdZMOj9NYu3Wl7mEpA6sobgrcaKVPK/FQzPvk/gh1c/suuy26lbBkiLg5ESMARp NZWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHr06k2I3Fam5CACsv/J++rnERv7BCtY4a+obUdMKrc4rTUFX7g LrrozspWgLh7XmKVjSBppHbbUkdcujj+OMJjLblv3g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdB0X2AndOkUAsUPNYMnHDMNZ/P6r07+Xx1g94oHNojhVu3zVhhtGmJcgkws3HBMyv3089l9Ysqsr/N/6Y467M=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:fc0f:: with SMTP id i15-v6mr4040614edr.81.1531430976028; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:aa7:c50b:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3cd519d9-9315-470c-e5f1-0f10062fadde@juniper.net>
References: <3cd519d9-9315-470c-e5f1-0f10062fadde@juniper.net>
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:29:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHANBtJFzTZFNmDDWp6UbC_v_ENs1UnK7aCn04Z=q4uVvRatQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>
Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/wub3bdaJ6CdSBEWHb3QdYtuv2SI>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-venaas-bier-mtud-01
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:29:40 -0000
Hi Eric Thanks for your interest and some great comments. Please see inline. On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net> wrote: > "The BIER MTU of an interface is the largest BIER encapsulated payload > that can be sent out of the interface" > > Please clarify whether "the BIER MTU of an interface" is: > > - the size of the largest payload that can be BIER-encapsulated and then > sent out the interface, or > > - the size of the largest BIER packet (including BIER header and payload) > that can be sent out of the interface. What we really need to find out the maximum IP packet that we can send across the BIER domain. If only a single type of encapsulation can be used for a packet going out a given interface, then what is specified in the draft should be fairly straightforward. But I am not sure if this is the case. A potentially simpler alternative is looking at the largest BIER packet as you mention above. But that means that the encapsulating router (ingress or originating router) needs to know the maximum encapsulation overhead (how many octets may get added to the IP packet when encapsulating), so that it can calculate a safe maximum IP MTU. I'm realizing at this point that I have some questions about encapsulation myself. E.g. may a packet get decapsulated and reencapsulated as it is forwarded through a BIER domain? I guess at least at an ABR this might happen. In that case the encapsulation might change. Finding the MTU is much easier if the encapsulation doesn't change in transit. > The procedures in this draft don't seem to take account of scenarios such as > those discussed in section 6.9 of RFC 8279, where a BFR may have to tunnel a > packet to the next BFR, by applying additional encapsulation before > transmission. Isn't it possible in these scenarios that the procedures of > the draft will result in a perceived sub-domain MTU that is actually too > large? A similar issue might arise if a "repair path" is used to get from > one BFR to another, since that would increase the size of the encapsulation > header. True. I think the procedures would still hold if the repair path can be thought of as a virtual tunnel and that you have BIER neighbors on that tunnel. Either way, I believe the router would have to determine the repair path MTU in order to take that into consideration. > Since the sub-domain MTU is determined by examining the IGP messages, how > would a source host (that presumably does not participate in the IGP) learn > what the sub-domain MTU is? Or is it the intention that the BFIR do any > necessary fragmentation? The latter wouldn't work for IPv6 though (except > in the case where the source host is also the BFIR). One of the main goals is that IP/IPv6 PTMUD should work. This is mandatory for IPv6. When an ingress router routes the packet, it will have to check the BIER MTU to determine if the packet is small enough to make it through the BIER domain. Else it would send IPv6 packet too big etc. If BIER is implemented as a tunnel interface, then the calculated MTU can be the MTU of the BIER tunnel interface. For IPv4 one can fragment if needed. We would then like the BFIR to know the BIER domain MTU so that it can do the necessary fragmentation. We want to avoid the need to fragment a BIER packet in transit, as this would require decapsulating the packet, do IP fragmentation, and encapsulate each of the fragments. In some cases the packets are originated by the BFIR (e.g. with overlays such as pim). The MTU is then useful to know how large e.g. PIM J/P packets can be to maximize the number of (S,G)s included in each J/P. > Another difficult scenario for this procedure is one where a packet has to > traverse multiple BIER domains to reach its destinations. If the packet is decapsulated leaving one BIER domain, and then found too big when reencapsulating, an ICMP message can be sent by unicast to the originator. > Another question is whether this is really of any practical value. Is there > a known use case? Please see what I just wrote. Just like any other IP tunneling mechanism, we want PMTUD to work, which means we need to know the tunnel MTU. And also when originating packets, such as PIM overlay. Stig > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
- [Bier] Questions on draft-venaas-bier-mtud-01 Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-venaas-bier-mtud-01 Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-venaas-bier-mtud-01 Eric C Rosen