Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-07: (with DISCUSS)

I am not sure I understand why any additional text is needed.

We agree that Detnet fulfils the requirements to run with no c/s, and adding a c/s is going to degrade performance since forwarders in routers cannot see the whole of the packet in the fast path and so using a c/s is actually going to degrade the detent performance in many cases by adding latency.

So if we are going add text I think we need to add a warning not to use the c/s unless you have special h/w to support its calculation automatically.

On the other hand we could without risk remain silent and leave this to the implementors & operators to agree since there is no interoperability issue.

- Stewart

> On 2 Dec 2020, at 22:40, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Balazs,
> 
> Digging in a little deeper, I concur with Magnus's underlying concern that this draft ought to say something about UDP checksums with IPv6.  There's a useful starting point at the end of the Introduction (Section 1):
> 
>   As specified in [RFC7510]: "MPLS-in-UDP MUST NOT be used over the
>   general Internet, or over non-cooperating network operators, to carry
>   traffic that is not congestion controlled."  This does apply to
>   DetNet networks as this document focuses on solutions for networks
>   that are under a single administrative control or within a closed
>   group of administrative control.
> 
> That suggests that the first two exceptions (a & b)  in Section 3.1 of RFC 7510 (both of which involve single administrative control) are more likely to apply to DetNet than the third one (c, based on higher layer recovery and/or error tolerance).  It could be helpful to say that in an added paragraph on UDP checksums (for both v4 and v6) at the end of Section 4 in this draft.
> 
> I would also suggest aligning the text quoted above (from the end of Section 1) with the text used in exceptions a. & b. in Section 3.1 of RFC 7510, as I think roughly the same scope is intended.  In particular, it appears to me that this draft's notion of "closed group of administrative control" would fall under the notion of "single administrative control" in RFC 7510 (FWIW, I'm an author of RFC 7510).
> 
> The suggestion to add use/non-use of UDP checksum to the list of management and control information in Section 5 is a good idea - that addition ought to cite Section 3.1 of RFC 7510 for the conditions under which the UDP checksum may be disabled for IPv6 (per RFC 7510, UDP checksum for IPv6 "MUST be implemented" for MPLS-in-UDP).
> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Balázs Varga A
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 12:25 PM
>> To: Magnus Westerlund; The IESG
>> Cc: eagros@dolby.com; detnet@ietf.org; draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-
>> ip@ietf.org; detnet-chairs@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-
>> udp-ip-07: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>> 
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Chapter 5. of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip provides a _non-exhaustive_ list of
>> control and management plane information.
>> DetNet does not changes rules of rfc7510: if the exceptions listed in 3.1 of rfc7510
>> applies, then using zero checksum is allowed; otherwise not.
>> 
>> A possible solution can be to add an additional information element to the list in
>> chapter 5, which allow or not the usage of zero-checksum.
>> 
>> Thanks & Cheers
>> Bala'zs
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund via
>> Datatracker
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:47 PM
>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>> Cc: eagros@dolby.com; detnet@ietf.org; draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-
>> ip@ietf.org; detnet-chairs@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-
>> ip-07: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>> Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-07: 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-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> So there might be something missing here in regards to zero-checksum in UDP
>> when using IPv6. So Section 3.1 in RFC 7510 discusses this for MPLS over UDP and
>> have some considerations that needs to be done if one are intending to use zero
>> checksum. To me it appears that DETNET flows can not be guaranteed to always
>> fulfill these, and in case you think you can motivate it should probably be stated
>> explicitly and normatively allow it. So if it can't be guaranteed to fulfill these
>> requirements then the next question exists: Do the possibility to use zero-checksum
>> for this flow become something the control plane needs to signal it?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> detnet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> detnet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet