RE: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Wed, 23 October 2019 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E1012004E; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 03:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qRVcSZctE8z6; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 03:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 832BF120098; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 03:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1ECA3E4FA868BB2B0868; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:08:06 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:08:05 +0100
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:08:05 +0100
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:08:04 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:07:56 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
CC: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>, "draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org" <draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
Subject: RE: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
Thread-Index: AdWFiuts9lClw3kCQaWaKSoqvpT0FwAxICWAAANOY4AAXP6xgAAumKVAAAf8nwAAJSUVUAAAwFKAABGk1FA=
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:07:56 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF0403D4@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <MN2PR13MB35820D0A6A5E73CBB5D9DD129A6C0@MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAPDqMeqANRZPxEswcp+=TdwgGQztgr3YS8bHH_wW4Ftfqj8YyQ@mail.gmail.com> <58F2AEA0-BC60-4629-85E4-3DA217ECF2AF@gmail.com> <0089a5343ba2440195146a36314f3aad@huawei.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF03EEF7@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CF17F307-FFFD-4181-8C67-E82C5BECF1AE@gmail.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF040161@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <59F00919-33F4-41B8-8DDE-F008955C3465@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <59F00919-33F4-41B8-8DDE-F008955C3465@employees.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pjpraJZLg0NgboWa5CldmjMh8f8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:08:12 -0000

Hi Ole,

Thank you very much for your suggestion. You are right, the text is not clear.
We are not going to create new EH, but to define TLVs.
This draft we may consider and compare several potential EHs and provide our preference. 
We will correct this in the next version.

Thanks,
Tianran

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Troan [mailto:otroan@employees.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 5:38 PM
> To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM
> WG <ippm@ietf.org>; Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>;
> draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org; Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
> 
> Tianran,
> 
> Also in this document you state:
>    The desired choice is to define a new Extension Header.
>    [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] generalizes the data
>    fields for the alternate marking method and inspired the layout.
> 
> But then it seems that you define a new TLV (aka option) for the HBH and DestOpt
> EHs. Is that correct?
> If so it might be worth making that clear in the document. Now it reads in
> some places like you are proposing to create a new extension header.
> Which we in general are not in favour of, given that we have three generic
> "container" EHs already. And tht we have text in 8200 strongly recommending
> against creating new EHs with hop by hop behaviour.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole
> 
> 
> > On 23 Oct 2019, at 03:19, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your suggestion. I agree.
> > We will update this in the next revision.
> >
> > BR,
> > Tianran
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:33 PM
> >> To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
> >> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Giuseppe Fioccola
> >> <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM
> >> WG <ippm@ietf.org>; Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>; Haoyu Song
> >> <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>; draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
> >>
> >> Tianran,
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 21, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Bob,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your comments.
> >>> On this:
> >>> " In the EH definition in Section 3.1.1 there is a field called "Flow
> ID".
> >> I can’t tell if this is the same or different from the IPv6 flow label
> defined
> >> in RFC8200 and RFC6437.   This should be clarified and justified."
> >>>
> >>> Here are my thoughts:
> >>> 1. The flow label in rfc8200 is used for application service, like
> >>> LB/ECMP,
> >> QoS. The flow ID used in the EH is to identify the monitored flow,
> >> and may be assigned by a controller. That is to say, flow label and
> >> flow ID within the same packet will have different scope, identify
> >> different flows, different usage. So it's better to separate the two.
> >>> 2. The flow ID is used for monitoring and measurement. The reuse of
> >>> flow
> >> label field may change the application intent(e.g.ECMP) and
> >> forwarding behavior. So that the measurement does not align with the
> original traffic.
> >>> 3. The flow label may be changed en route. The reuse of the flow
> >>> label field
> >> for the flow ID may violate the measurement task.
> >>
> >> The issue I raised is that because the names are similar, it is easy
> >> to confuse the two.  If this is different, the draft needs to be much
> >> clearer on its definition.  For example, the draft doesn’t include
> >> most of the text you wrote above.
> >>
> >> I would also suggest a different name so it won’t be confused.  For
> >> example, “measurement ID”, or similar.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Tianran
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giuseppe
> >>>> Fioccola
> >>>> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 9:30 PM
> >>>> To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>;
> >>>> IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
> >>>> Cc: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>;
> >>>> draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Bob, Tom,
> >>>> Thanks a lot for your review of the draft. Much appreciate.
> >>>> Please find my answers inline tagged as [GF].
> >>>>
> >>>> Best Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Giuseppe
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 7:08 PM
> >>>> To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
> >>>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Haoyu Song
> >>>> <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>; draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org;
> >>>> Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I did a quick read of this draft and have a few comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> It appears to be defining a new IPv6 extension header.   It should say
> >> that
> >>>> in the title and be described in the abstract.
> >>>>
> >>>> [GF]: I will do.
> >>>>
> >>>>  This document defines how the alternate marking method can be used
> >>>> to  measure packet loss and delay metrics of IPv6 and SRv6.
> >>>>
> >>>> As Tom mentioned, SRv6 is part of IPv6, they are not separate things.
> >>>>
> >>>> [GF]: Sure, we meant that it can be applicable to IPv6 and, as a
> >>>> consequence, also to SRv6. We will specify it better in the next revision.
> >>>>
> >>>>  The IPv6 Header Format defined in [RFC8200] introduces the format
> >>>> of  the IPv6 addresses, the Extension Headers in the base IPv6
> >>>> Header and  the availability of a 20-bit flow label, that can be
> >>>> considered for  the application of the Alternate Marking
> >>>> methodology.  In this
> >>>>
> >>>> RFC8200 does not define the format of IPv6 addresses.  That is done
> >>>> in RFC4291.
> >>>>
> >>>> [GF]: Yes, we will add the reference to RFC4291.
> >>>>
> >>>> This draft appears to depend on a number of IPPM documents, but
> >>>> none are listed as normative references.
> >>>>
> >>>> [GF]: We will review the dependencies. In particular we may need to
> >>>> cut the reference to draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking and
> >>>> leave only RFC
> >>>> 8321 and draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark.
> >>>>
> >>>> One of these is RFC 8321, but that has status of Experimental.  I
> >>>> don’t think this document can be Standards track if it depends on
> >>>> an
> >> Experimental RFC.
> >>>>
> >>>> [GF]: Consider that RFC 8321 was classified as Experimental since
> >>>> it describes a methodology that came from lab experience. In
> >>>> particular, the first example of application was with IP packets
> >>>> where there is no space for marking and we reused the DSCP field for
> our scope.
> >>>> However the applicability of the method is general and, in this
> >>>> draft, the new IPv6 extension header introduces an appropriate
> >>>> marking field that would be dedicated only for the alternate
> >>>> marking method and not for other purposes. So we refer to RFC 8321
> >>>> just for information and this does not necessarily imply that the
> >>>> draft should be
> >> experimental, therefore it could be discussed.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the EH definition in Section 3.1.1 there is a field called "Flow
> >>>> ID".  I can’t tell if this is the same or different from the IPv6
> >>>> flow
> >> label defined
> >>>> in RFC8200 and RFC6437.   This should be clarified and justified.
> >>>>
> >>>> [GF]: Of course, it is a separate field and we will make it clearer
> >>>> in the next version.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 19, 2019, at 8:32 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 1:30 AM Haoyu Song
> >>>>> <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just read this draft and I think it’s an implementation of the
> >>>>>> draft
> >>>> [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking], which discusses the
> >>>> method of encapsulating the enhanced alternate marking header in
> >>>> IPv6. I have several comments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It doesn’t cover the encapsulation on SRv6 yet and I think a
> >>>>>> solution for
> >>>> SRv6 would be more useful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SRv6 _is_ a subset IPv6. It is one type of routing header. Like
> >>>>> any other use case of IPv6, HBH and destination options are
> >>>>> useable when
> >>>>> SRv6 header is present. Because SRv6 is a routing header
> >>>>> destination options before the routing header are processed by
> >>>>> each destination in the route list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> More deployment consideration discussion should be given when
> >>>>>> it’s encapsulated in HBH EH
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In what regard?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The document mentioned two PBT modes discussed in
> >>>> [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]. Since the PBT-I variation
> >>>> has been merged in another draft
> >>>> [I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export], this draft may need to be
> >>>> updated
> >> accordingly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Haoyu
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> ippm mailing list
> >>>>>> ippm@ietf.org
> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> -- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org
> >>>>> Administrative
> >>>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> - IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> >>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> -
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------