Re: [core] Anycast and CoRE

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 12 December 2018 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A906E130F1B for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:14:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 wp6FlFipi3Dm for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:14:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DCAB130FCE for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:14:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost2.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c8:406a:91ff:fe74:f2b7]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id wBCLDoK2010402; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:13:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.102] (p54A6CE66.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.206.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43FV0s63kfz1Br6; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:13:49 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181212205851.GB665@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:13:48 +0100
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, core@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 566342026.662764-cf1317c641a55f36cb72a9bb06d45fe1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B93F08B-F6A1-4624-BFF6-3EDB8E67D9F3@tzi.org>
References: <017201d48f49$99516560$cbf43020$@augustcellars.com> <20181212205851.GB665@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
To: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/K5XBABplfSiSAuSLMBBmXBF4Dno>
Subject: Re: [core] Anycast and CoRE
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:14:34 -0000

Hi Jim,
hi Christian,

I think the assumption here was that the anycast address is usable as a unicast address.
So the server can reply from the same address that it got the request on (as it always should if it has multiple addresses, which is almost always true in IPv6).  The special exception for multicast is not invoked (and not needed).

Of course, there is an assumption here that the routing won’t change quickly enough that the reply is swallowed by a BCP38-like mechanism.  If that happens, I’d say this is like any other routing-instability induced packet loss, and for a piggybacked response the client will simply retransmit.

If the anycast goes through an ECMP-like mechanism, multiple requests in a block-wise transfer would still go to the same server.  If there is completely random distribution, well, you get what you sowed…
(That is the general load balancer problem.)

Grüße, Carsten


> On Dec 12, 2018, at 21:58, Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 02:58:54PM -0800, Jim Schaad wrote:
>> I am trying to figure out if Anycast is supposed to have the response
>> on the Anycast address like Unicast does, or if it should be returned
>> on a Unicast address.
> 
> I can't offer guidence, just my .02€:
> 
> The client may not know that it's talking to a multicast server.
> Therefore, the client would not correlate any messages from a unicast
> address.
> 
> As for the block-wise transport, the effects would not be too bad:
> If it's a stateless transfer, all is fine. If the anycast servers have a
> magic backplane that distributes incomplete transfer states, likewise.
> Otherwise, the transmission needs to be restarted.
> 
> Can't say much about DTLS, but in OSCORE that'd be an ideal use case for
> the appendix B2 protocol. When the route flips, the client will get a
> 4.01 once and continue exchanging data with the protocol's Req2 message.
> 
> Best regards
> Christian
> 
> -- 
> There's always a bigger fish.
>  -- Qui-Gon Jinn
> 
>