Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 August 2019 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9531202A0; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 HmgiGZW2BkgW; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 12FEF1207FC; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id t14so2126361lji.4; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xeL+1bcyxfJiUJYwlYAZc0uGS11Wz+3piCda0UF1jc4=; b=qjeQlx91dHD1ffC9o8af+TCSCrvjKHIDd43uiaTmZhhjXjVvl7GsDR3Byz6Yf2IOxf OiuNHsEV3yIq+nS/xywwWs3CbVO47QkNcmgEKZoDQGgfdyvrNafiYwhIv4XJw0ms7fyf rzXF+JEsqCkksHzJPPpdb4wh7i0XvA2jn1y8NBGbhJk+uqqaHAVlpYZs2wPOkAywiZ+3 kpS0p1C/ai6yo/OPpLL+lq8EFIgViPb1XS6SJdE5MO+jZf648CV0MK2CeqpVCCRE8odN XvA/HJshVqOPPVFE/c9UybIRlmwqzWQXYSl4zR+xj/rPyw3j8b02nBYLMKT3rOVEdLj2 5Jyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xeL+1bcyxfJiUJYwlYAZc0uGS11Wz+3piCda0UF1jc4=; b=mp6zztqKQbyDeiSOkBgD0QqIaLymH2b671yQaUS4uZlLV46bnA3Cio1Tppn0ReXMbR 4prRor0ZpAAx0btna6jqPgOa+K+8FKbW1TxsG2bp5wZMYEl+OBcU0BepjoRS2yZ8lo9P Nor8xoJmL1km7bb5ZgzAy+sdd6CV7ZPsmJ+cLKmiAvfhCcH1A23jqmYhF3JTRWQOn/DO 4Fn9lkzNYnqJ48tPuzCIiXggXDTXJNW5BwRxbpmUVBb3tbD9ZQZqbLn0+afKeHRLWmHC +RjGJQEFZsEll4Pt7VAZ2iaaLwGvL7bjh+3UEETlyfaTCuUbgqEZgdksAlmGt+hCL3zR LpCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXaujr5+cuv4QujWq7C3DXwyoxabueEiN6Pqa8dcUptgYuVm6uR XrYv76+8FaGW4Voq0jZMRfUMbaS0Kja/etTe/g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyU5SrZovYpEBRQCxTP/Guadv16Q+T6rSeyBrgzygpxp55CZr0e1nC1OmaWHO+JXWpHKSxPL+HYVmYZX7vQWrQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9702:: with SMTP id r2mr11584714lji.84.1566227588093; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B617B303-6EBE-4E3B-AE5C-1438FF1C5D7F@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmVEmKQu=LGp9eVT+x5e01LCSk_A4tQD=RE8Ett-R35BVg@mail.gmail.com> <11938018-8A65-483B-8176-A6E1C2A265A3@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmX=Jx2yXrMXu4Y2VKX36iKphymb1Hkyfy0XhPGFmsUGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmXPCe7TZQqPgsKsVnifZDG8O8wGafDn-nzYfGpx2OiaXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F167C330-76F4-48FC-B720-415CA190239C@broadcom.com> <CA+RyBmVtfXcwqu1RH-1JXnhpCZcbGgm30ubKGctUPnLNJCgVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6f=x1j_fXAoqZ874y0nw7Y1wP0OeS9eFuToSBQfrqkJLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVWZ3utikyBRm4TDhRDuMd3cZ9-otbuX=Mbg0ioAGjwHg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eJf2xjsRJwnBtd5KFHbwO4KX3gEjs_Nv1Dhf39ZWjegA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXHTjpbWv4FGpOsfL94Zip3MsVvESyka5M8PrmNKFB=YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6dGneYXFr3Xk_DuQnbwa=-ObV_SNdGOSj1Z203wW-PzTg@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppn9jpCLaSLR3QSN=yA0uDyXXMCQ+Rm4qFrR5OrjS31Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eidFR-doLCvMim6HJZ142q_Q0V7XmiLP6Ki5_jmNvUxw@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppD+GSRf2U_eSPfm4RkTC1-vm-+rfuVJUesHmFiPxmnGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6e=eDds8fEWgqTs6anYb0m2jciZ7EHBtNtNWp3i6s+0=w@mail.gmail.com> <CH2PR04MB657072ABD626806915BC94F7CBAC0@CH2PR04MB6570.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR04MB657072ABD626806915BC94F7CBAC0@CH2PR04MB6570.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:12:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6dSJABREi2RpLi7qg6ocvfr0fouhkDNisjS03D2ygXm_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Civil, Ruth" <gcivil@ciena.com>
Cc: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "rrahman@cisco.com" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000069c8d059079c7eb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/BTLIrfTvwnMCxUJqa0n7sgOtP3s>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:38:32 -0700
Subject: Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:13:14 -0000

Hi Ruth,

Thanks for forwarding the email discussion.

There are several drafts [draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07]
[draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-29] those allow User port as well as dynamic port
ranges as defined in [RFC6335]. System ports are not allowed.

   o  the System Ports, also known as the Well Known Ports, from 0-1023
      (assigned by IANA)

   o  the User Ports, also known as the Registered Ports, from 1024-
      49151 (assigned by IANA)

   o  the Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private or Ephemeral Ports,
      from 49152-65535 (never assigned)

TWAMP Yang model [draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-13] can also support the
range to allow user ports. An example caveat is specified in
[draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-29] as "unless the TURN server application
knows, through some means not
   specified here, that other applications running on the same host as
the TURN server application will not be impacted by allocating ports
outside this range. "

Thanks,

Rakesh


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:54 PM Civil, Ruth <gcivil@ciena.com> wrote:

> We did have a long discussion about allowing UDP ports outside of the
> dynamic range in the TWAMP Yang model (see the attached outlook thread).
>
> I'm not sure of the repercussions of allowing TWAMP test traffic with UDP
> port numbers that are assigned to other protocols.
> For example,  if we started sending TWAMP test packets with a destination
> UDP port of 123 (NTP) to an IP address on a remote device.  How would an
> NTP application running on that device know that these are not NTP packets
> - and therefore that it should not intercept them and attempt to process
> them as such?
>
> Cheers,
>         Ruth
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2019 8:56 AM
> To: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>
> Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>om>; rrahman@cisco.com; Shahram
> Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>om>; draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org;
> IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>et>;
> IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org
> Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
> Thanks Henrik.
> Adding the authors of the TWAMP Yang model to see if they have any
> thoughts on the UDP port range. It is still not an RFC, so may be this
> comment can be addressed if needed.
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:30 AM Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com> wrote:
>
> > The range probably comes from the IANA definition of the ephemeral
> > ports
> > (49152 to 65535) although these are defined for short-lived TCP and
> > not explicitly for UDP. Why this made it into the yang model for
> > TWAMP-test (which is UDP) I dont know, probably someone mixed it up
> > with TCP and it passed the reviewers without much thought.
> >
> > Most, if not all, implementations of TWAMP I have seen does not impose
> > limitations on the source UDP ports for the TWAMP-test packets when
> > configuring via CLI. For example neither Accedian, Exfo, Viavi,
> > Juniper, Nokia, Huawei impose any limitation like that when
> > configuring via CLI or GUI.
> >
> > With a yang model based configuration the user will of course be
> > limited if they use the yang model that only defines the ephemeral range
> as valid
>