Re: [Int-area] Wrapping up post IESG evaluation discussions on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 02 October 2019 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@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 3458A1200B6; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 jnwIlEMoe9zY; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (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 EE8471200B1; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id n7so26640314qtb.6; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 07:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qurtIPC5llt9rf7lJGRaYzqzTs3UuFqi+Mn9Bd/HY98=; b=YvNXrZev00kzcrVILdxivvrgbramm2GO/tO+QaBhG08g57gkwPpZLims8rMZS2ya5U WSEGUkejoe9tCDDwwcCZD8j+dDZ7uXVZsAX7ta09hbskXzYJ295whD07m3vxW30Vl37I ucPU96IgG81h+R2+js00B5OjWNZLZrKSaSY/hS7ycjUn82N3xpL1w2oO7sj/gFF7TZ2V szaOePOQTJUlCc6WzeTDSkoL9N7zLzvwOgsLZd6Td2Im28eQV8PrOqnzdYXhOnPyq87n IgCYkvqQyZ61FSiAc0dGXaTSJcjTXdVI/tPdlDMJckZwMzXsuG6Y4T85PBujtzutbvCE U7/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qurtIPC5llt9rf7lJGRaYzqzTs3UuFqi+Mn9Bd/HY98=; b=iOob5eYwdm1iYO92fOWcvqVsQaQuvUKPbwvGq6zFcF3R/QbgHaRgMiZRWZho69dwTU yEGctqvmb7pvchg0Ltn/lqEiI+7QgSS53VLsKmek8FCy1+DLyZD7sC0HcBc88m1pWD6Z wvjpzBQE2HmlYEBhILkQK4V6abBDw26VjXX2V51lhLUE+I2gappLyEpXVOfgTzZVX4lN XbVXudAs3VS9GGeyws0vmIz2p/99u6GFh5CRrHzt/KbpiTuVPOjyedsYEre3eDsgbY1d zHNIl6lmOUpYF/160QV/mdy4xAaBSFDQMcwRLWbX8kCEEnkOFjtYn/aF0Az8S+Jw1ONF pxjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXW/rbJrLdO/pD9Oq0uxmjZ/xCwXSyEspZu/l0bVxjkv24xQ+L b6Ku/+LsfBJXrPoVJA9tjwg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxe18x9NY2gfnf0z5iAmVPtXS4kLfrPEQglQnyb1tl/l3nXNXnBuTgBMkqYOGN3GbXrj8IcUA==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:9326:: with SMTP id d35mr3183245qvd.162.1570027224959; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from freds-mbp.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([216.168.230.9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i30sm11653085qte.27.2019.10.02.07.40.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Oct 2019 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.18\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DE93DB2F-150F-42AC-A43D-EEAF555E8B02@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 10:40:21 -0400
Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Fred Templin <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile.all@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BEC69AEA-D32A-49F5-8074-86F17D6B9430@gmail.com>
References: <1C19C408-638A-4636-805E-9B1D026DE8F0@kaloom.com> <DE93DB2F-150F-42AC-A43D-EEAF555E8B02@gmail.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/m3xz0KehfZs_sIoWWXStW-0uZvY>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Wrapping up post IESG evaluation discussions on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
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, 02 Oct 2019 14:40:29 -0000

A follow-up note in the thread pointed out that STIR/SHAKEN has large SIP messages. This particular issue may solve itself as companies deploy STIR/SHAKEN and talk with their vendors...

> On Oct 2, 2019, at 10:35 AM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> So I'm reading NANOG and finding a certain thread interesting in this context. Look in the archive (or if you follow it, just look at your archive) for the subject line "Spectrum (Charter) Fragmented UDP".
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> The text changes in version -16 of this draft for the resolution of Alissa Cooper’s DISCUSS position resulted in lively discussion on the mailing list. The authors have made another revision of the draft (version -17) to address the comments raised during this discussion. If you believe that any of your substantive points have not been addressed please respond to this mail stating what they are. As the responsible AD, I believe that the draft is ready to move forward and be approved, and I would like to do so by end of day on October 8th 2019 in the absence of any actionable objections. 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Suresh
> 
> The point made this morning is that telephones have horrible TCP implementations:
> 
>> From: Phil Lavin <phil.lavin@cloudcall.com>
>> Subject: RE: Spectrum (Charter) Fragmented UDP
>> Date: October 2, 2019 at 8:59:42 AM EDT
>> To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
>> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
>> 
>>> While we can say this should just work, the reality is, it's not very reliably true and I would not build product or business on the assumption that it works well.
>> 
>> Yup. Understood. We can't get away from sending multi-packet messages. We try our best to keep SIP messages as small as possible though sometimes certain optional features required by customers push it beyond their MTU. We're also starting to see decreasing MTUs as customers deploy various SD-WAN solutions and it's tough to keep up with these when you're already teetering on the edge of what used to be considered a fairly common minimum MTU value.
>> 
>> We can, of course, get away from using UDP. We can and do run SIP over TCP and indeed over TLS on TCP though the stateful nature of TCP often makes this undesirable. We see a lot of SIP phone implementations that do not handle TCP connection failures very well and result in a loss of calls for a period of minutes if this happens, as they take a while to notice the connection has dropped and should be re-established. Pros and cons of each.
>> 
>> If anyone has any specific information about Spectrum CPE changes or indeed any contacts who may be able to interrogate this internally within Spectrum that would be appreciated.
> 
> What we are saying in this draft is that such things ought not to be. Do we have practical advice in context? "Fix your TCP and use it"?