Re: [Dots] Improve controllability and predictability of keepalives

"Valery Smyslov" <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 20 November 2019 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07551120843 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:14:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, 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=gmail.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 VICuHpRa-HLg for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (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 AFE3012083B for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id w8so3745392pjh.11 for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:14:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=Vm1VVXXSla3Dk/xLDFEjZ1uIgnypctHkNphnvXmoaUE=; b=SOB3ccHsTIGBNZpCWfgCiAHCQf92CdckHyeD3coGoV6eSETBZdblBYRbsm5NDeR1hc YNxaZkI/ggf76gZVWOERq0cgxuKHkOXrZJlFje/ybzLVx8wwkiC/D/MyMDaZZR31oy3z jWNBO+iAYqfx/3ytvJuUiT7JIbLxOTEIyXRDP/KW0KMc6Manyqes+DbKxzvbAjeHLyhK xMSsqMBTnCVJZc2I/O9NIAkX/QUezXO1ngh5KRoSM5BWpMqF9Jn+nvz1bD6SIFPmN23B Li+VhIydIyxnqmm1Wf+4rH1Mdf+ToSSPo6UQP7mZimymqMI5B1cNGJlpSQIjSXqdAd+d 3uGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=Vm1VVXXSla3Dk/xLDFEjZ1uIgnypctHkNphnvXmoaUE=; b=btBNtSGkw5+B50lKhbc1bOnhNnNnXDp8QbiZdWu6rAYWHfeIDbjU7+4ixvJ+eGiqCo qHUSjCytRaE5sR+gNMyAl4XZOVxftcf0nlxXEUghb8BsBmvzWo8p9QWReWai6F2Ry4Ib b+/xsbvTjbZY4lHjROphjKutsYYwONh/zwgIKAehBgpq54CE2EAiVsMmEwvacnV4HMM9 OyTJ6EMOwUBou7jdvuGw783kk381U+IWjVSHFn9UparVCYkIhTYgPrgMh5Y0lDFbfkk4 S6PE9xC8ei7yenHLdwpW2UMbjIaOFozequlkHO4JGnYJs+c8IOrguN+aUsml9l/HgZ7w OHwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWJT01+3tYDRcY4QT2ORzz+r2colz/7bsn92yDYIbyQjbj4irAr He0RUFPVRYcSl0UMQss4rpk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwrAny/YK1mrvHFCWPnXg6NBIxhKtl2XxAkgpGXC8nD8vsKBRZbdKNFXR1r36RvYm2rAwlXIQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4d8f:: with SMTP id m15mr2262889pjh.71.1574234067137; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from svannotebook ([2001:67c:370:128:4178:fd98:6553:ab5c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h22sm124207pgn.78.2019.11.19.23.14.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:14:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "Valery Smyslov" <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "'Carsten Bormann'" <cabo@tzi.org>, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc: <dots@ietf.org>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313624A5@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <18CFEB6A-81B8-44A4-B749-DB1689E0B442@tzi.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031362BF5@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313D3421@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <8E353427-9380-44CF-B151-63DB0106BFCA@tzi.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313D89A8@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BA7D4C74-73BF-4B7A-B211-01B20993E251@tzi.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313DAD87@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <0BA3CB18-4B5D-4EC8-8FD1-29EB3AF4D556@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <0BA3CB18-4B5D-4EC8-8FD1-29EB3AF4D556@tzi.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:14:24 +0300
Message-ID: <04cd01d59f72$247dccd0$6d796670$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIXJOzvn3dYVWTeGBcCCuWDuiWx2wLj5trtAjzT8xUDJvXgVgJoQV/BAd5++hoB8NKz5AKuALAoAZH4iNKmeqA/YA==
Content-Language: ru
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Z4gaXEQI8XeIN34b_15SnhyzmZE>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Improve controllability and predictability of keepalives
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:14:30 -0000

Thank you, Carsten!

Regards,
Valery.

> Thank you.
> 
> I think my concerns are addressed.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
> > On Nov 20, 2019, at 14:50, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org] Envoyé : mercredi 20
> >> novembre 2019 07:20 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN Cc :
> dots@ietf.org
> >> Objet : Re: Improve controllability and predictability of keepalives
> >>
> >>>> Thank you.
> >>>> I still have a few questions, but I think this looks very good.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4.4 says:
> >>>>          Mitigation requests MUST NOT be delayed
> >>>> 	   because of other congestion control checks.
> >>>> What might those be?
> >>>
> >>> [Med] A too low probing rate for example as indicated in the
> >>> sentence
> >> right after that excerpt. There is a risk that mitigation requests
> >> are delayed (or that heartbeats are not sent which may lead to
> >> session liveness checks).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> (You don’t want to be in a situation where you send a ton of
> >>>> mitigation requests that are mostly dropped at the tail of a
> >>>> queue.)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> [Med] Yes, we don't that. The authoritative rule is as follows:
> >>>
> >>>  Requests marked by the DOTS client as Non-confirmable messages are
> >>> sent at regular intervals until a response is received from the DOTS
> >>> server.  If the DOTS client cannot maintain an RTT estimate, it MUST
> >>> NOT send more than one Non-confirmable request every 3 seconds, and
> >>> SHOULD use an even less aggressive rate whenever possible (case 2 in
> >>> Section 3.1.3 of [RFC8085]).
> >>
> >> And if it can?
> >
> > [Med] It does the following:
> >
> >   DOTS agents MUST NOT send more than one UDP datagram per round-trip
> >   time (RTT) to the peer DOTS agent on average ...
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Before Figure 27, it says:
> >>>>
> >>>>          The PUT request used for DOTS heartbeat MUST NOT have a
> >>>> 	   'cuid', 'cdid,' or 'mid' Uri-Path.  Such PUT requests MUST NOT
> >>>> be
> >>>>
> >>>> 	   relayed by DOTS gateways.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why?  (And what should the DOTS gateways do instead?)
> >>>
> >>> [Med] Session loss detect and recovery is local to an agent and its
> >> immediate peer. Heartbeats are thus not relayed.
> >>
> >> Ah, I was confused.
> >> Where is “DOTS gateway” defined?
> >
> > [Med] It is defined in draft-ietf-dots-architecture-14#section-2.2.3:
> >
> > =====
> >   Traditional client/server relationships may be expanded by chaining
> >   DOTS sessions.  This chaining is enabled through "logical
> >   concatenation" of a DOTS server and a DOTS client.
> >
> >   A DOTS gateway may be deployed client-side, server-side or both.  The
> >   gateway may terminate multiple discrete client connections and may
> >   aggregate these into a single or multiple DOTS sessions.
> >
> >   The DOTS gateway will appear as a server to its downstream agents and
> >   as a client to its upstream agents, a functional concatenation of the
> >   DOTS client and server roles, as depicted in Figure 4:
> >
> >                         +-------------+
> >                         |    | D |    |
> >         +----+          |    | O |    |         +----+
> >         | c1 |----------| s1 | T | c2 |---------| s2 |
> >         +----+          |    | S |    |         +----+
> >                         |    | G |    |
> >                         +-------------+ ======
> >
> >> I’m assuming this is not like a CoAP Proxy?
> >> It would need to expose the equivalent to /hb.
> >
> > [Med] Yes, nevertheless the client does not need to assess the end-to-end
> connection, but only the one it uses to place its mitigation requests (it is not
> even aware about the existence of the ultimate server). Likewise, the server
> domain (includes both gw and server) does only need to assess if it can reach
> out a client to trigger.
> >
> >>
> >>> We can update as follows:
> >>>
> >>> "This procedure occurs between a DOTS agent and its immediate peer
> >>> DOTS
> >> agent. As such, this GET request MUST NOT be relayed by a DOTS
> >> gateway. The PUT request used for DOTS heartbeat MUST NOT have a
> >> ‘cuid', 'cdid,' or 'mid' Uri-Path."
> >>
> >> This doesn’t quite address the above, though.
> >>
> >> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots