Re: [CDNi] New Internet Draft: draft-sopher-cdni-footprint-types-extensions

Nir Sopher <nirs@qwilt.com> Mon, 11 January 2021 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <nirs@qwilt.com>
X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F573A1057 for <cdni@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:45:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.655
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=qwilt-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 Ch3Vf811xfmr for <cdni@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (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 0A0CF3A1053 for <cdni@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id b26so448855lff.9 for <cdni@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:45:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qwilt-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6rorCtPaKB/9iCBWhPnyD+2L6F5p+Pzd6xaUGYLwmSs=; b=u9bjwuoG1UK7ozYi7fyW8b3wFg+imiIddAY0gZeVp29pGu20nynytZzZ/lP2UoTHrz QVcqUixYEy0hwBPSJXOVQOYZw3nkmNGdQeGNkCB6YZ2GPr/y/QR8JCIBG/25aD/3WMKh e94KABtSTkxxYO+5oJQV007UtZzWvdv+8dzeM99/M17tu/dWtoGPrQF14yktbsyHUCZJ ecVBnNd51ehMiPjijKvXXt4NkYbiycqJzLv4joxwbuEdnKUkrVTxFrkm7rtqoG8dOJIJ hUqRpRdo4+6DyIuF+Z3lt0vYs94I5JL55KPkdfpSYzFJHlDbdbcM2nHGHryZZvNsKUgK SxKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6rorCtPaKB/9iCBWhPnyD+2L6F5p+Pzd6xaUGYLwmSs=; b=KNdc0OEIEylyjUpXQytTGNgDSCfsjrBXo86KWGeeKHiCYkMi96AcnbTmV3rhBqOahj qv+7q92l1SxCitSZFI0NG8jsZ/sYZy0uAz42rJqpBtCqmZsvXWjbOP/phElSGAI4wW/3 5GEW6CutQc+4p6JZ42KZaJTD+mijVS+thUIMKFXC1h/UI4JLHDS7TX1BNhJ2zn/w/1gw y8cMTY6xePTcEPl3SC4pnsGB4EhP0vwf0w2rWnI9tlmrctJUpG7LC1y7Mknf3uxsNJTV 73btbz4DGPDwr+hlB2x5UK5pc6bAsAkJt7xuQmcK/6vk4nGB0i3+IydbljbcG6J4LRym 9jTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532WRnYUVBHZ17U/FeuvhQbBjrsuGkvQJ4Cc4XESnQffqNsu3aMQ P+qcG8DdqzAFolf+6gb4tAHejmyFELMrAGU+dCeZkw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJweH7ad6xon0zJlMra3TKMsqLVG7NF0z0KcnvxDga2uXyaLYz2eE17chfEwLPq4am/6wtxJbEotZtFNSXDbhcQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4473:: with SMTP id y19mr192665lfl.431.1610383543925; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:45:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <97e045b4b8ae42738a43f3dc0e3e1ca1@tbwexch02apd.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com> <PR3PR10MB4239816DC20211300DC4EE49E1AC0@PR3PR10MB4239.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAMrHYE2QM8+G2Z0BJ5O3iLej7qsxB_ZWY_8G9jHsrwVX0-1u8w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrHYE2QM8+G2Z0BJ5O3iLej7qsxB_ZWY_8G9jHsrwVX0-1u8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nir Sopher <nirs@qwilt.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 18:45:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+ec=9paJQYpTQRc9v7C_WqekynApA-mNY90746uXc+_+mHs-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Guillaume Bichot <Guillaume.Bichot@broadpeak.tv>, "cdni@ietf.org" <cdni@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000016923b05b8a2a35b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/kf3JpZgWbM44F9y2EUviMoh3zbw>
Subject: Re: [CDNi] New Internet Draft: draft-sopher-cdni-footprint-types-extensions
X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" <cdni.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cdni/>
List-Post: <mailto:cdni@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:45:49 -0000

Thanks Guillaume and Kevin,

Indeed, disregarding the statement in the appendix would negate the need
for the ipv4v6cidr.
However, IIUC, this would weaken the protocol:
Take for example an integration where we would like the footprint to cover
only clients within a Europe wide spread ASN, but only in Belgium, or only
the NY clients of a US-wide ASN. The protocol when disregarding the
"narrowing semantics" statement would not be able to specify it (while in
the original semantics it is definable).

One can argue we need to be able to create some boolean expression. ORing
and ANDing footprints.
I think a better approach (Guillaume, it might be the direction you were
pointing at), is to define now a "footprint object class", grouping the
"footprint object types"

   1. Footprint Class: ip
   Grouped footprint-types:
      1. ipv4cidr
      2. ipv6cidr
      3. asn
   2. Footprint Class: geo
   Grouped footprint-types:
      1. countrycode
      2. iso3166code

When a footprint objects list is composed from multiple footprint-object
classes, we should first merge objects from the same class as a "set", and
then use the original narrowing semantics between the classes.

This approach would solve the issue and would align with the original
semantics in most cases, but would also avoid the "absurd result".

Thoughts?
Thanks,
Nir

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:56 AM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>   It's been a while since we had the FCI debates, and FCI has a rather
> complex history, so I've had to refresh my memory.
>
>   wrt the text in question: "Multiple footprint constraints are additive:
> the advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's
> candidacy cumulatively." I believe that statement was referring to if
> multiple FCI messages were sent for the same capability but the messages
> had different footprints in them; I do not believe it was intended to apply
> to multiple footprints in the same message.  (I believe it stemmed from a
> protocol implementation question for how to override footprints and how to
> deal with footprints in sequential messages, which I had addressed in my
> original capabilities protocol draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ma-cdni-capabilities-04#section-2 and
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ma-cdni-capabilities-04#section-3.2 .)
>
>   In addition, I don't know that we should give any normative weight to a
> non-normative statement in an appendix.  As the draft points out (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sopher-cdni-footprint-types-extensions-01#section-2.1
> ), applying the statement to the list of footprints in a single message
> produces an absurd result (i.e., disjoint footprints produce an empty set
> of footprints), and that was certainly not the intention (which I think we
> can infer from the prevention of such a result in the protocol drafts).
>
> > Frankly, this is very strange that the statement is almost hidden in a
> kind of annex  whereas it could have been located in section 5 in a proper
> dedicated section.
>
>   Coming out of IETF 90 and 91, we had decided to focus the FCI semantics
> draft on just the information that needed to be advertised and separate out
> the protocol specifications (see:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/3GVjUbBNsf2gV8fQUhcVBRID_mU/
> ).  All of the less relevant material was moved to appendices (per:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/2gLvfnlbpJjIo57bER72kIiSZsk/
> ).  In hindsight we probably could've done more to clean up the appendices,
> but as is always the case, we did not have the benefit of hindsight at the
> time.  The decision was made to rely on ALTO as a transport protocol, which
> defines its own footprint type and enforcement rules (see:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-14#section-4.1
> ).
>
>   We probably also could have done more to specify the interpretation of
> the footprint list, but I think that was just delegated to the protocol
> specs.  At the time, there was contentious debate between advertising of
> footprints vs advertising of capabilities (thus:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8008#section-3 ), and our focus was
> clarifying the advertisement of capabilities with footprint restrictions
> and completing the semantics draft so we could move forward with the
> protocol draft(s).
>
>   If folks feel strongly about the appendix being confusing, we could
> consider filing an errata?
>
> Sanjay/Nir,
>
>   If we disregard the statement in the appendix and assume that within a
> single message, multiple footprint types are allowed and are considered as
> a set, does that negate the need for the proposed ipv4v6cidr footprint type?
>
>   wrt the iso3166code footprint type, I don't see any issue with it if
> folks feel it would be useful.
>
> thanx!
>
> --  Kevin J. Ma
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:54 PM Guillaume Bichot <
> Guillaume.Bichot@broadpeak.tv> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sanjay & Nir.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the  statement from 8008 (Appendix B) : Multiple footprint constraints are additive: the advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's candidacy cumulatively.
>>
>> Frankly, this is very strange that the statement is almost hidden in a kind of annex  whereas it could have been located in section 5 in a proper dedicated section.
>>
>> Your proposal solves the issue but not completely. I guess nothing prevent me to add several footprint constraints of the same type like the example below. Strictly speaking, if I captured well that statement, we should end up with an empty list as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> {
>>
>>      "capabilities": [
>>
>>        {
>>
>>          "capability-type": <CDNI capability object type>,
>>
>>          "capability-value": <CDNI capability object>,
>>
>>          },
>>
>>          "footprints": [
>>
>>              {
>>
>>                  "footprint-type": "ipv4cidr",
>>
>>                  "footprint-value": ["192.0.20/24"].
>>
>>              },
>>
>>              {
>>
>>                  "footprint-type": "ipv4cidr",
>>
>>                  "footprint-value": [["192.0.21/24"]
>>
>>              }
>>
>>          ]
>>
>>        }
>>
>>      ]
>>
>>    }
>>
>>
>>
>> I have another proposal  that is the following: instead of creating a new footprint type that requires a change in RFC8006 as well, why not just changing that statement that looks strange and almost faulty.
>>
>>
>>
>> -remove that faulty statement in Appendix B.
>>
>> - create a new section 5.x about “footprints” and add a new statement (or just add that new statement in Appendix B) like the following:
>>
>> ”Several footprint constraints can be given of either the same type or not.   The uCDN MUST consider the resulting footprint as a set of geographical areas constrained with a set of IP address ranges if any. If several geographical areas overlap then the coverage zone corresponds to the cumulative areas.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Examples
>>
>> -          E1: a set of address ranges
>>
>> "ipv4cidr", ["192.0.2.0/24", “192.0.2.1/24”]
>>
>> “ipv4cidr”, [“192.0.2.2/28”]
>>
>> "ipv6cidr", ["2001:db8::/32"]
>>
>> -          E2: a set of geographical areas
>> "iso3166code", ["ca", us-ny]
>>
>> -          E3: a mixed of geographical areas and address ranges
>>
>> "ipv4cidr", ["192.0.2.0/24"]
>>
>> "ipv6cidr", ["2001:db8::/32"]
>>
>> -          "iso3166code", ["ca", “us-ny”]
>>
>>
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>>
>> *Guillaume BICHOT, **Principal Engineer, Head of Exploration*
>>
>> +33 (0) 6 8559 7666 | guillaume.bichot@broadpeak.tv
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* CDNi [mailto:cdni-bounces@ietf.org <cdni-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Nir Sopher
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2020 6:19 PM
>> *To:* cdni@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [E] [CDNi] New Internet Draft:
>> draft-sopher-cdni-footprint-types-extensions
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> We have submitted draft-sopher-cdni-footprint-types-extensions
>> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dsopher-2Dcdni-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2Dextensions_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DudBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ%26r%3DXniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM%26m%3DTs5uj_nZmoHgi7pPldjWKsDPgmeeiO_RkotsI8zZD-E%26s%3DoWZZ4TjWJsq7Ao899RmyOUwUgAjNYeVlksfkKAy-UeA%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7Cguillaume.bichot%40broadpeak.tv%7Cf6b67a86cc4b44ff6b7a08d8a83b82a1%7C0ebe44eac9c9438da0407e699f358ed4%7C0%7C0%7C637444320869999346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=YxIzX3bst5GAicrOxFI%2BqfRZYO65%2Fwh07pDTwoYrrJg%3D&reserved=0>
>> that extends RFCs 8006/8008 in order to address the following issue:
>>
>>    - Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 of [RFC8006] specify the "IPv4CIDR" and
>>    "IPv6CIDR" footprint types, respectively, for listing IP addresses blocks.
>>    Using Footprint Objects of these types, one can define an FCI Capability
>>    Advertisement Object footprint constraints that match IPv4 or IPv6 clients.
>>    Also as described in section 5 of RFC 8008, the FCI
>>    Capability Advertisement Object includes an array of such CDNI Footprint
>>    Objects. The array of Footprint Objects has a "narrowing" semantic that
>>    prevents the usage of IPv4/IPv6 objects together in order to create a
>>    footprint constraint that matches IPv4 clients together with IPv6 clients.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the submitted draft:
>>
>>    1. We add a new usecase of dCDN advertising a footprint that consists
>>    of both IPv4 and IPv6 client addresses, by defining a new "IPv4v6CIDR"
>>    Footprint Type.
>>    2. We also add support for ISO3166Code Footprint Type, based on ISO
>>    3166 country codes and regions definition. This Footprint Type allows the
>>    dCDN to advertise a footprint based on a specific region, for example a
>>    state in the USA.
>>
>> We would highly appreciate it if folks can review and provide any
>> feedback.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and Happy Holidays,
>>
>> Sanjay & Nir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CDNi mailing list
>> CDNi@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CDNi mailing list
> CDNi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>