IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] [dime] #32: Sequence-Number Time-Stamp values within OC-OLR

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 07 February 2014 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317761A05F5 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:26:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 VAm5x0vfzoJT for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA181A05ED for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 10so976692lbg.36 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 02:25:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=j55DjSWCFaaY8DFtolC7xLFF1nXT8q5G6tlexTNwgwQ=; b=k7HiI+DJW7/OtFEG+AME5S+R83avuV0bqir9dI0GjxiwSK/eWWPqAMxP4YwY6/1HNa OE5vOD6XXnJewwlU0ysSCNb4fPru7IBIfvX0g2AxhNkRq+wOJm3psVzFs9vmLugK6v78 EtkSD2dgJFWsIy1Vv759Zcik0ZyTB78k+S34Z5r3Ze6Yhq4ZICFPaI9zcklyc0LUs/67 xWvQ/NW5AtRg15xs3SnKUcrmglf/h7q4skJbI2O+zrEx8Ebsh1RXTthdeDdtcci4+zX1 MXkfXlgvPApVgEq6mRjDmlCPpeoDKvyY0n5Ai7Oesh6N/IWeCCMgMgLuHDCJBcPXn/qH 6OFQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.27.100 with SMTP id s4mr9600067lag.18.1391768757646; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 02:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:6e8:480:60:5cf:580e:21dd:449d? ([2001:6e8:480:60:5cf:580e:21dd:449d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ri4sm4373006lbb.6.2014.02.07.02.25.41 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2014 02:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <066.f8b7ffcffcd55b9e56fa2bfc281d4649@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:25:43 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <89F5C818-E425-46EB-81A7-A90907A5F320@gmail.com>
References: <066.f8b7ffcffcd55b9e56fa2bfc281d4649@trac.tools.ietf.org>
To: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #32: Sequence-Number Time-Stamp values within OC-OLR
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0000

My personal take is that we should simply say it is
a NTP timestamp and not fuzzy around it with other
possible treatment possibilities.

- Jouni


On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:49 AM, dime issue tracker <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:

> #32: Sequence-Number Time-Stamp values within OC-OLR
> 
> The -01 draft says in clause 4.4:
>    From the functionality point of view, the OC-Sequence-Number AVP MUST
>    be used as a non-volatile increasing counter between two overload
>    control endpoints (neglecting the fact that the contents of the AVP
>    is a 64-bit NTP timestamp [RFC5905]).  The sequence number is only
>    required to be unique between two overload control endpoints.
>    Sequence numbers are treated in uni-directional manner, i.e. two
>    sequence numbers on each direction between two endpoints are not
>    related or correlated.
> 
>    When generating sequence numbers, the new sequence number MUST be
>    greater than any sequence number previously seen between two
>    endpoints within a time window that tolerates the wraparound of the
>    NTP timestamp (i.e. approximately 68 years).
> 
> 
> With this mechanism it is difficult to get back to sync once you are out
> of sync (for whatever reason).
> It is proposed to mandate that the Sequence Number is a real 64-bit NTP
> timestamp (RFC5905) indicating the point in time when the OLR was created,
> and to mandate that  OLRs with a time stamp higher than time of reception
> must be ignored by the reacting node.
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------+--------------------------
> Reporter:  lionel.morand@orange.com  |      Owner:  Ulrich Wiehe
>     Type:  defect                    |     Status:  new
> Priority:  major                     |  Milestone:
> Component:  draft-docdt-dime-ovli     |    Version:
> Severity:  Active WG Document        |   Keywords:
> --------------------------------------+--------------------------
> 
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/32>
> dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email