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

"Civil, Ruth" <gcivil@ciena.com> Mon, 19 August 2019 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=71347a499e=gcivil@ciena.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 2D160120106; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=ciena.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 48j7LHkeNAoV; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.152.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F5AE120096; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0002317.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x7JFQl7F004139; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:26:49 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ciena.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=06252019; bh=piBdnhFhi548JJnivzuGhGPgIwhaZ1W4wm7okIxCiF0=; b=t8JWg11p6MotiWx+fQA34DJ8VH4cnVe8+oSvZui5FC2t59zySqEco6YRkYWZaonf5kjM QqhW6qCTaAD4UYLXrIj6bn32n9k7ZRUueZPWNkPik3emB4BmRudX50c2c7qUop5n1kRs LsG3yXSFDLGvGvbrn/MDQvG0Wq13KukHXnNI6SRa28nZ9AusbGLefMakq8HqJfeWPFiQ /7L/Fysqu4vtlU0TxbW++I2AEefaMZc0vz+FnuULa3WdIcrWv26jHUj5H2AD2mOIzacv nR+9Qx+x1BeKGA3hmu1+HjN+JyRY+z+Q6GDkUqk6Uob7JtDd9u1AJyZTiThYDu6aFdlB Wg==
Received: from nam05-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam05lp2054.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.48.54]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uedtjq7pk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:26:49 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hLB7NFfXExpAcMtLCX7E/j5XrQ5a9cMef3fhLqbZ/lU333onOeNfyIkjyF7EgBc5BljZGdEYJdks+ValkY4iEsEXogfNwXXo+oEKIIWJw00pmnbN+SrKvGn41/RUFGe+sgxHcdIO93etV7o/TnS4oqFMsM1B6a6va95+Qri01G9NZ3F9zycdlIeiOcLysUb1Vp6i7pKuVcB31qy8qE+WljV8xoC8qh0kc8A3W5OSPtaLjJtEDWWjkB+tDINAs+okXJ0G6impkG5JY6i22yxvdSAUZW9f/H7OV0E/Bx+Vwx6bNoh/voiqK7uIjVWmTj/70Mu2ATJagKMqXHAw0t3v1Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=piBdnhFhi548JJnivzuGhGPgIwhaZ1W4wm7okIxCiF0=; b=P9GK5FZ7bVKEF45aSLXsSRNukphKUuwq26DJpmlziQadfv5Xba/R9eytcuE8F0yixkU7c5yKUlJCB6Rd0hIm/fafOgcPFSinQ4OP2irnnXUFGODBwYBcOLICZldWg3+L76KgWjjvb0KmcEA/lIqvlJy4wjj5Xwh8567xAP4CD22Pd1K4JIUmcEeTdjb0p8DJa1ZYUnAhzG2SxmW6AxRpf2ilrdDptW4ID8m7qgVljm9eLfpq21WiGta4W9iR/rV8x3x4q99d9ySKbrUnF8r4rwFJFnBIXopwizAnEmXggOkbfYeyYK5GGMsUQ/r5v1NjaPTqlDswdowfctfAnzab1w==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ciena.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ciena.com; dkim=pass header.d=ciena.com; arc=none
Received: from CH2PR04MB6570.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.186.136.210) by CH2PR04MB6554.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.186.137.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2178.16; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:26:35 +0000
Received: from CH2PR04MB6570.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::82a:a49c:3426:2e68]) by CH2PR04MB6570.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::82a:a49c:3426:2e68%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2178.018; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:26:35 +0000
From: "Civil, Ruth" <gcivil@ciena.com>
To: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "rrahman@cisco.com" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "pentikousis@gmail.com" <pentikousis@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
Thread-Index: AQHVTR97Di7Hvy9iy0KjR0ijBI1bHab8eA1ggAYu3ACAAAM7IA==
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:26:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CH2PR04MB6570EE97A7888E5115F5DD94CBA80@CH2PR04MB6570.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
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> <CAMZsk6dSJABREi2RpLi7qg6ocvfr0fouhkDNisjS03D2ygXm_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZsk6dSJABREi2RpLi7qg6ocvfr0fouhkDNisjS03D2ygXm_A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [165.225.36.125]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fd55ff74-f1e2-46b8-b24c-08d724b99f2b
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(7168020)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7167020)(7193020); SRVR:CH2PR04MB6554;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CH2PR04MB6554:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CH2PR04MB6554AC6AE75386CD7156D888CBA80@CH2PR04MB6554.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0134AD334F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(366004)(346002)(136003)(376002)(39860400002)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(486006)(14454004)(11346002)(446003)(55016002)(5660300002)(236005)(74316002)(86362001)(478600001)(229853002)(45080400002)(6306002)(54896002)(9686003)(54906003)(8936002)(7736002)(81156014)(81166006)(8676002)(316002)(76176011)(26005)(7696005)(186003)(99286004)(71200400001)(71190400001)(6506007)(53546011)(6246003)(102836004)(2906002)(6436002)(66476007)(64756008)(66446008)(476003)(76116006)(53936002)(33656002)(6916009)(66066001)(52536014)(5070765005)(4326008)(25786009)(256004)(14444005)(5024004)(6116002)(3846002)(790700001)(66556008)(66946007)(55236004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CH2PR04MB6554; H:CH2PR04MB6570.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ciena.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 6Enu1lwexVxVVZbTDRk0NJRbtkkgCgBcl884b0EhV5lPFFyLs48RMuYcOmIXmEyy+9meumP+WtQUDkkMwf/OeCMX7/m6UfkgJ6zmirI3B1nzwsCV5IeGS3v9QJgkoD1qkaBOTipSWDx/2BCcM2Ve2+7u58efbHXgLBJWNp31mMu58cB3xWtoEdgG4kuVgM0BlD0J0+ef2T+Nbl5i6X3/N/fjiVchu7MS3VGZFj1bz7WJluQdwE3tVWMlArF20s4B3Qlv7Iwn2MxWe2HmcE7umMJyJp/QyTRsUKhGEL/4wqx7wzwl4eiOFEYPRoYLZi3z8s0KGHvlR9jE1ReAZ64dzHg2Hqxu2CYCBtVv3m/L+GBtLleYF3XAx3uJcA3Ipz8j4UUFZ3V2X5CdmHTcJLu5lCShszaPVryGBB+BlV3/yrM=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CH2PR04MB6570EE97A7888E5115F5DD94CBA80CH2PR04MB6570namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ciena.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fd55ff74-f1e2-46b8-b24c-08d724b99f2b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Aug 2019 15:26:35.2794 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 457a2b01-0019-42ba-a449-45f99e96b60a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pgIJCnqaLmqIPXBbEEjv74mBYqOG2V+YGUrDh3ReYZmHVNWuTXRN9O8qi8sjSCK71pVmYrNdfjoeTB0E2p7ceg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH2PR04MB6554
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:5.22.84,1.0.8 definitions=2019-08-19_03:2019-08-19,2019-08-19 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1908190170
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/suaJq0M0_kq5YQLXjeWrM0xaPCY>
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 15:26:56 -0000

I have no objection to changing the range for the UDP port in the TWAMP yang model.  I guess we need concensus from the other authors, and I believe Kostas or Mahesh would need to update the document.

From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>;
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 11:13 AM
To: Civil, Ruth <gcivil@ciena.com>;
Cc: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>;; Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;; rrahman@cisco.com; Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>;; 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
Subject: Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

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<mailto: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<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2019 8:56 AM
To: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com<mailto:hnydell@accedian.com>>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>; rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>; Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com<mailto:shahram.davari@broadcom.com>>; draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>; IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ippm-chairs@ietf.org>>; Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>; draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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