Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags Re: Regarding draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:12 PM Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Please see inline…
>
>
>
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Donnerstag, 1. August 2019 20:54
> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>; IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags Re: Regarding draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags
>
>
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> thank you for your expedient response and the clarification, much appreciated. I have some follow-up questions but your response, in my opinion, supports my original evaluation of the draft that it is not ready for WG adoption. I don't agree that the presumed benefits of the proposed Loopback flag outweigh risks that were called out during the meeting and were pointed by Tom and me.
>
> Also, thank you for informing everyone that a design team is forming to define the use of the Immediate flag. I think that that flag should be introduced along with the clear and firm specification of its utilization.
>
> And I'm still not clear about how the Active flag can be used. You suggest that it is intended as complementary to "an operator who uses his own probing". What such "own probing" could be? Why would the operator use well-known standard-based active OAM for fault management and performance monitoring?
>
>
>
> …FB: draft-lapukhov-dataplane-probe-01 is an example of an operator’s approach to probing. I’ve also seen deployments where the probing is integrated with the application – i.e. part of the application solution, which is another example domain where specific health checks are used.
>
>
>
> And, going back to the scenario in DC. I wonder why the well-known Traceroute is not sufficient?
>
>
>
> …FB: In the scenario discussed below, detection speed was the driving factor – the IOAM loopback solution gives you an indication of the failed link in less than 1 RTT.

Frank,

I'm doubtful it would be practical to set loopback on every packet
given the amplification characteristic, which means that either it's
done as a periodic probe or on demand when the application has reason
to suspect a failing link. In either case, it seems like the latency
to detect and identify a failing link would be greater than 1 RTT. Am
I missing something?

Tom

>
>
>
> Cheers, Frank
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:32 PM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Some additional notes on the different flags - restating and expanding the discussion we had at the WG meeting in Montreal:
>
> Loopback flag:
> The loopback flag was inspired by a specific use case, which could be summarized as "rapid identification of a failed link/node in a DC": In a DC (read: controlled/specific domain), one runs UDP probes (draft-lapukhov-dataplane-probe-01) over a v6 fabric. In case a UDP probe detects a failure, one adds the IOAM trace option and enables loopback mode - i.e. every node sends a copy back to the source in addition to forwarding the packet. Correlating the information from both ends allows one to pinpoint the failed node/link rapidly and gives one a view of the overall forwarding topology. This use-case was implemented in FD.io/VPP roughly 2 years ago and was also showcased at IETF bits-n-bites. There is a rough outline of the open source implementation available here: https://jira.fd.io/browse/VPP-471 .
> In more generic words: Loopback mode is like all IOAM, a domain specific feature. Loopback mode is to enrich an existing (here the dataplane-probe) active OAM mechanism.
> Reading through the comments below, it proves that the current draft is indeed a good basis for the discussion and it also clearly shows that we need to add a section to the document that expands on how loopback mode is expected to be used.
>
> Immediate export flag:
> Per the WG discussion in Montreal - and the follow up breakout meeting (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Do9kJ9ED_grmTqwcZHSdpy3CmRk):
> The plan is to consolidate the IOAM-related content for a new "immediate export option" from draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04 and the description of the immediate export flag in draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags  into a new draft.
>
> Active flag:
> The active flag is not to replace any existing active OAM mechanisms - but rather allow an operator who uses his own probing along with IOAM to flag a packet as a probe packet.
>
> Security considerations for flags in the context of PNF vs. VNF:
> Thanks for raising the point. It would be great to see specifics/details discussed here on the list, so that those could be incorporated into the security section.
>
> Thanks, Frank
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ippm <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 1. August 2019 00:41
> > To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags Re:
> > Regarding draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:53 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Authors,
> > > thank you for bringing this proposal for the discussion. When considering WG
> > AP, I use the following criteria:
> > >
> > > is the document reasonably well-written; does it addresses a practical
> > > problem; is the proposed solution viable?
> > >
> > > On the first point, I commend you - the draft is easy to read.
> > > On the second point, I have several questions:
> > >
> > > What is the benefit of using Loopback flag in the Trace mode?
> >
> > This is unclear to me also. Additionally, I am concerned that protocol blindly
> > reflects the packet back to the source without any regard to what else the
> > packet contains. For instance, if a TCP packet is reflected by ten intermediate
> > nodes this is nonsensical. The possibility of an amplification attack is obvious
> > and in fact mentioned in the security section, however I'm skeptical that the
> > proposed mitigation of rate limiting is sufficient.
> >
> > Minimally, it seems like the reflected packets should be wrapped in ICMP to
> > mitigate spoofing attacks. Also, I wonder if traceroute methodology could be
> > used for tracing, i.e. one sent packet results in at most one return packet (ICMP),
> > to mitigate the amplification problem.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > > Why is it important to limit the applicability of Loopback to only Trace mode?
> > > What is the benefit of collecting the same, as I understand the description,
> > data on the return path to the source?
> > > What is the benefit of using Active flag comparing to existing active OAM
> > protocols?
> > > What is the benefit of using Immediate flag comparing to Postcard-Based
> > Telemetry (PBT) proposal?
> > >
> > > On the third point, I'd appreciate your clarification on these points:
> > >
> > > In which transports (I find that iOAM encapsulation has been proposed for all
> > known transports) you've envisioned to use Loopback flag?
> > > The third bullet in Section 5 refers to a replica of the data packet that follows
> > the same path as the original packet. What controls that replication?
> > > The last paragraph in the Security Consideration section relies on "restricted
> > administrative domain" to mitigate the threat of malicious attacks using a
> > combination of iOAM extensions. That might be the case when operating in a
> > PNF environment, but it is much more challenging to maintain such a trusted
> > domain in VNF environment. How can these new security risks be mitigated in a
> > VNF environment?
> > >
> > > Appreciate your consideration and clarifications to my questions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:07 PM Brian Trammell (IETF) <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> hi Greg,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the feedback; absolutely, we can do this the normal way. Authors:
> > let's do a normal two-week adoption call for this document before publishing
> > the update.
> > >>
> > >> This adoption call starts now.
> > >>
> > >> IPPM, please respond to this message with an indication to the mailing list of
> > your support for adopting draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags as a working group
> > document, in partial fulfillment of our charter milestone "submit a Standards
> > Track draft on inband OAM based measurement methodologies to the IESG"
> > (obviously, depending on how many documents we end up sending to the IESG,
> > we may have to change the plurality of this milestone). If you do not support
> > this, please send a message to the list explaining why.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, cheers,
> > >>
> > >> Brian (as IPPM co-chair)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > On 25 Jul 2019, at 13:15, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Dear Chairs, et al.,
> > >> > I appreciate that editors of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data followed on the
> > decision of the WG reached at the meeting in Prague to extract material not
> > directly related to the definition of iOAM data elements from the document. The
> > new draft was presented earlier this week and generated many comments. I feel
> > that it would be right to discuss the draft and its relevance to the charter of the
> > IPPM WG before starting WG adoption poll.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Greg
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ippm mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm