Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 30 January 2019 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF04131308 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:15:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 UwpbJ205yn-0 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:15:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (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 C25DB131306 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id y185so244784wmd.1 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:15:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=/U80Hdht89EjmJeigeqEdpvvYNDFohMhRMpVJHx5acw=; b=NApLieStTUEbJzK4zsgCNpBlNg2G38GlLY84vWeWKYi1NjYsuaYwikRFStUu1GYEsh 4o7MlvkXww6dRPSE2x/QNm1kPmagLQmP5cYm4UjQAcF1ggeHqEGH1BsVyO7OvPLbVq9S 0XTqXmlLb/d93vJ8zGnwkPgFp3fJjCqg3ZthYNXWBenqM128U9K55Pb4jmff2a3QZkek 9akxcMBBHCYMKbbjnHHAxQJOMccyugxZjTbXBs/BSmdYgmLebv8pVA76CkuA7rUmBzhu /tEyELEEznAYaCheB2In4cMccIfMlLfOVu42Bbi0qcgXfkS3xISH1xx92K1oFMwmVOFA lJIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=/U80Hdht89EjmJeigeqEdpvvYNDFohMhRMpVJHx5acw=; b=TdiEMQ5I2kMShchYI8/patdxLuzblJi5LyEZuHIIsI+0KpvsvZ3KzUXgNqu4RyNyZc +7ysVME82yahG79bgKXPC4ZTQC1oLB0ZjvRyF+HB3KlMTEVLzHbOOuO0vLjJtgV9kRJm vR9yfNhWo4ILYwPCYK5j15d9EIxgYtJV3NWxOLBr/heDX7sJ3a9q++pBNl0G+mUuZnrp khSeMQo7txXQgMbzOAcumD0+5FMyaXIIeboM7neXUMSpoS+beS8RPYLpsRGXCzYRYvsM k0nhk+zMqnoDYWfZoTGS8gt2tNpzKm7IVaICuHV9itFOm4e104yaOheZyc93q+BPLzLe 1oZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfDlTiShy8KqgnRyYTAmgCvKTBzlwkD9ooYduvEKo9eRrpRl7Ul v6LLja6K4z8MA24ZqvRsqKiIDXZj
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5QUE843lnRX19og6Xe45pzF12kx/7J+yZ9Wgg/BJzACB+eU3OS/+tCxYBoXAkpw9OCL533sQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c04e:: with SMTP id u14mr24454174wmc.133.1548872102786; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.198] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e27sm2457903wra.67.2019.01.30.10.15.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:15:02 -0800 (PST)
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
References: <CALx6S35kwvHL5iE4Ci10LQbPzun3k1C-T4m5B55yAyL+nP4sdQ@mail.gmail.com> <3B29EAA5-5989-4A8F-857B-3DEF63A7FEA7@gmail.com> <538a3580-dd3a-a778-dda0-bfc30f749bd9@gmail.com> <751bf1d2e6f94e98a5f9bafad3b27bf4@boeing.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a3136fb8-2c5b-5c53-bde1-f29cd55641e2@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:15:00 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <751bf1d2e6f94e98a5f9bafad3b27bf4@boeing.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A6F3838CF5088D080ECEC74C"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/87i3TF_8MOydkMRS1Y_EzpWFa6M>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:15:09 -0000

Hi Fred

I had something quite simple in mind:

Fragment the IP packet just as you do today and send each fragment as 
opaque data in a simple 8 byte basic UDP payload with port set to IP. 
Set the source port based on a hash of the 5 tuple. Then resemble the IP 
just like you always would.

- Stewart


On 30/01/2019 16:55, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
>
> Hi Stewart,
>
> >> It we really need to fragment a packet, it would be better to stick 
> the fragments inside a common UDP/IP(no frag) shim.
>
> I agree. Two different approaches for UDP fragmentation that avoid IP 
> fragmentation
>
> are currently under consideration:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/
>
> Thanks - Fred
>
> *From:*Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Stewart Bryant
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2019 6:14 AM
> *To:* Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Tom Herbert 
> <tom@herbertland.com>
> *Cc:* int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06
>
> On 29/01/2019 23:37, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>
>
>         Section 4.5:
>
>         "IP fragmentation causes problems for some routers that support Equal
>
>         Cost Multipath (ECMP). Many routers that support ECMP execute the
>
>         algorithm described in Section 4.4 in order to perform flow based
>
>         forwarding;
>
>     As far as I know, routers that hash fields in the IP header to select a en ECMP next hop do so because all packets in a flow will hash the same way (modulo the issues with the transport port number), not because they are doing per-flow forwarding. The do so explicitly to avoid having to maintain per-flow state and yet make all fragments of a message follow the same path.
>
> I agree with Fred. ECMP is normally done to distribute the load over 
> the available next hops on a best effort basis. Originally it was done 
> per packet, but that gave problems with out of order packet delivery, 
> so the routers moved to doing it based on the five tuple described in 
> this draft. It is a stateless best effort ECMP process with no regard 
> to specific flows and the path for any five tuple may move arbitrarily 
> if routing changes its mind on the ECMP set.
>
> Fragmented packets are really bad news in networks that need ECMP. 
> There is not enough entropy in the SA/DA/Protocol triplet and anything 
> else results in misorder. But if ECMP is not done this overloads the 
> default path.
>
> MPLS is also stateless but there are more options, although the most 
> common is to look past BoS to the five tuple, however some "features" 
> make mistakes and look at a non-existent five tuple despite hints in 
> the packet that thus is a bad idea.
>
>         therefore, the exhibit they same problematic behaviors
>
>         described in Section 4.4. In IPv6, the flow label may alternatively
>
>         used as input to the algorithm as opposed to parsing the transport
>
>         layer of packets to discern port numbers. The flow label should be
>
>         consistently set for a packets of flow including fragments, such that
>
>         a device does not need to parse packets beyond the IP header for the
>
>         purposes of ECMP."
>
>         Add to section 7.3:
>
>         "Routers SHOULD use IPv6 flow label for ECMP routing as described in [RFC6438]."
>
> If we want to migrate to the FL then we really need to state that the 
> FL MUST be set by the sender. Without, that we are never going to wean 
> routers off looking at the five tuple, if indeed we ever succeed in 
> doing that.
>
> It we really need to fragment a packet, it would be better to stick 
> the fragments inside a common UDP/IP(no frag) shim. Then the 
> forwarders could carry on just as they are. We would never get 
> misorder and we would not be faced with the impossible problem of 
> changing the Internet core forwarding behaviour to a single consistent 
> model.
>
> - Stewart
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Int-area mailing list
>
>         Int-area@ietf.org  <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Victorious warriors win first and then go to war,
>
>     Defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
>
>           Sun Tzu
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Int-area mailing list
>
>     Int-area@ietf.org  <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>