[Detnet] Diffserv concerns wrt: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01.txt
"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Wed, 17 July 2019 19:50 UTC
Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C62120124 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=dell.com header.b=QLdylh2S; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=gWyXEZy+
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 LNoJUc9YGpR8 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com (mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com [148.163.137.20]) (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 2BFFD120090 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0170395.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6HJoHVQ011687 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:50:53 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dell.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=smtpout1; bh=HVvlq/CeABeaH5h+nWk5Tswg+KpJ8+9G3umKD2yqdj0=; b=QLdylh2Shf54WGu1DGgvYtMAcbkMREy+BW73cJHlWwEulKAV0k7HPJVfJVeFegRarcEz GFHP4N6ZLOfUazP8eoUKzb45VoQNCgGez4JPXWkf0yvv/3LhX0UXkRHuSaC0n1xHv5Py THgC0CIMW0lbvUZny/SjEU5YRDzkL3gTiqdHNWjWoLPulHxlIsjkQ2pjwzobqsDCI4ld /sU6MGGezXq0ac7AnI08iqdTCHiD7ppV1g4uxJLbFCYim4hLnHlfDauDV73nf5UuVsX8 nwRnlOCtsXDOT24YWSneMnSvXl1MjFZxO7wmsfzAXERFun+yvdg7irScASqsjpdMOye1 mg==
Received: from mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com [67.231.157.37]) by mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tsw0yvbwd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:50:53 -0400
Received: from pps.filterd (m0144104.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6HJm6aI062262 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:50:53 -0400
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tt9yj869m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:50:52 -0400
Received: from maildlpprd05.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd05.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.37]) by mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x6HJollO028167 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:50:52 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com x6HJollO028167
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1563393052; bh=XH/ACjQEF5aONmOqViGVk+i9HtY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=gWyXEZy+CGx00SvmcdVje+taqhFokTS9lyTmlzo9Dns2jCpu5klq8gxWATAtzksPZ QAuTR4en/oeWRqUc/YOPgzuFom11YcDwuohvqfUZByh8/MqUhCSz4LIh58TQr2jcln QiLG1Wyr/dkL1EPhO+tBJ3tMvP5jjQIbANFC5i6k=
Received: from mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.25]) by maildlpprd05.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:49:54 -0400
Received: from MXHUB310.corp.emc.com (MXHUB310.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.36]) by mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x6HJo1Xo022923 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:50:04 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB310.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:50:02 -0400
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
To: "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Diffserv concerns wrt: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01.txt
Thread-Index: AdU82NI0zJogipuDR3CrxrfrYzYiyA==
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:50:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493630621AD9@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SiteId=945c199a-83a2-4e80-9f8c-5a91be5752dd; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Owner=david.black@emc.com; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SetDate=2019-07-17T19:16:48.5974120Z; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Name=External Public; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Extended_MSFT_Method=Manual; aiplabel=External Public
x-originating-ip: [10.238.21.131]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-17_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907170223
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907170224
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/I6CIBBfbHyl3UHIbqAkmoVOEF5c>
Subject: [Detnet] Diffserv concerns wrt: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01.txt
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:50:59 -0000
Found a few things that need attention in this draft. [1] First, a "MUST fix" in Section 5.1.1.4: 5.1.1.4. IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields These fields are used to support Differentiated Services [RFC2474] and Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]. Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the IPv4 Type of Service field when processing IPv4 packets, and the IPv6 Traffic Class Field when processing IPv6 packets. Implementations MUST support bitmask based matching, where bits set to one (1) in the bitmask indicate which subset of the bits in the field are to be used in determining a match. Note that all bits set to zero (0) value as a bitmask effectively means that these fields are ignored. That won't fly, as using a DSCP bitmask conflicts with this paragraph in Section 3 of RFC 2474 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2474#section-3): Implementors should note that the DSCP field is six bits wide. DS- compliant nodes MUST select PHBs by matching against the entire 6-bit DSCP field, e.g., by treating the value of the field as a table index which is used to select a particular packet handling mechanism which has been implemented in that device. The value of the CU field MUST be ignored by PHB selection. The DSCP field is defined as an unstructured field to facilitate the definition of future per-hop behaviors. The draft's text starting from "Implementations MUST" through the end of that paragraph needs to be rewritten to align with RFC 2474. [2] Second, a smaller "MUST fix" in Section 6, where this: o IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields. is listed as part of the Management and Control information. That item needs to be changed to specify only the 6-bit DSCP portions of those fields (see RFC 2474), otherwise the DetNet Management and Control functionality may get confused by the ECN info that is in the other two bits of those IP header fields. The ECN info should be masked off and not visible to DetNet management and control. [3] Finally, some clarification on 6-tuple is in order, starting from this text in Section 3 (DetNet IP Data Plane Overview): The DetNet IP data plane uses "6-tuple" based flow identification, where 6-tuple refers to information carried in IP and higher layer protocol headers. The 6-tuple referred to in this document is the same as that defined in [RFC3290]. That text is fine as far as it goes, but I see a couple of additional considerations: a) Each 5-tuple (i.e., 6-tuple without DSCP) can be used for at most one DetNet flow, i.e., the flow identifications of any two separate DetNet flows MUST differ in at least one component of the 5-tuple (or MUST NOT differ only in the DSCP). b) There are Diffserv situations in which a single flow can use multiple 6-tuples that differ only in DSCP. Diffserv AF (Assured Forwarding) is the important example, see RFC 2597. I believe that text needs to be added to make a) clear. Section 4.3.2 (Quality of Service) to avoid cluttering up the overview in section 3. The situation in b) is different, and I think b) can be characterized as inapplicable to DetNet, as the only important Diffserv example is multiple AF drop precedences - multiple drop precedences make no sense in a DetNet flow that never experiences drops if the network is functioning correctly. It would help to add a sentence somewhere to state this and that use of multiple AF drop precedences in a single DetNet flow is prohibited. Again, Section 4.3.2 looks like a good place to do that. The possible use of multiple drop precedences gets more "interesting" if multiple drop precedences need to be supported end-to-end in order to affect drop treatment of a flow in the non-DetNet portion of the flow's network path, but I would hope that this idea is simply out of scope for DetNet as a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" topic (i.e., the response is "Don't do that!!"). Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet- > drafts@ietf.org > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 2:32 PM > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: detnet@ietf.org > Subject: [Detnet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01.txt > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Deterministic Networking WG of the IETF. > > Title : DetNet Data Plane: IP > Authors : Balázs Varga > János Farkas > Lou Berger > Don Fedyk > Andrew G. Malis > Stewart Bryant > Jouni Korhonen > Filename : draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2019-07-01 > > Abstract: > This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when > operating in an IP packet switched network. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
- [Detnet] Diffserv concerns wrt: draft-ietf-detnet… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] Diffserv concerns wrt: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Diffserv concerns wrt: draft-ietf-de… Black, David