RE: [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2tpext-gr-01.txt
Sharon Galtzur <sharon@AXERRA.com> Wed, 21 January 2004 14:44 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23950 for <l2tpext-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:44:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjJaK-00076M-Jr; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:44:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjJZZ-00074E-TH for l2tpext@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:43:13 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23895 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:43:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjJZY-0001mG-00 for l2tpext@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:43:12 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AjJYU-0001j1-00 for l2tpext@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:42:09 -0500
Received: from [80.74.100.67] (helo=antivir2) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjJXT-0001V3-00 for l2tpext@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:41:04 -0500
Received: from 192.168.254.14 by antivir2 (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:07:34 +0200
Received: by TLV1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <DLZ5B6MD>; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:06:06 +0200
Message-ID: <AF5018AC03D1D411ABB70002A509132601085FED@TLV1>
From: Sharon Galtzur <sharon@AXERRA.com>
To: "'Paul W. Howard'" <phoward@juniper.net>
Cc: "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>, l2tpext@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2tpext-gr-01.txt
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:06:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPartTM-000-e67da9d1-cea2-410d-a8e5-5f1baa7c3116"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: l2tpext-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2tpext-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Hello Paul and all, See my comments inline Sharon Galtzur -----Original Message----- From: Paul W. Howard [mailto:phoward@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:25 PM To: Sharon Galtzur Cc: W. Mark Townsley; l2tpext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2tpext-gr-01.txt Sharon, Thanx for your responses. Please see further comments inline ([pwh]) Thanx, Paul Howard Sharon Galtzur wrote: Hello all, See my response in the mail body. Sharon Galtzur -----Original Message----- From: Paul W. Howard [ mailto:phoward@juniper.net <mailto:phoward@juniper.net> ] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 4:59 PM To: W. Mark Townsley Cc: l2tpext@ietf.org <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2tpext-gr-01.txt I have a few questions/concerns in regards to this draft: 1) This proposal presents what appears to be an entirely different mechanism than that proposed in the v2 draft (draft-vipin-l2tpext-failover-02.txt). It would seem to be important that we attempt to have a single mechanism for both v2 and v3 or to at least minimize the differences to those that are unavoidable. In LDP there is exactly the same occurrence - RFC 3478: Graceful Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol RFC 3479: Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) This draft follows the model presented in RFC 3478 with adaptation to L2TPv3 [pwh] My understanding is that 3478 and 3479 present signficantly different approaches to the problem of dealing with a failed endpoint - 3478 recovers by learning from the non-failed endpoint (graceful restart) whereas 3479 recovers by state replication on the failed endpoint. Both your draft and Vipin's would seem to fall into the category of graceful restart (i.e. learning from the non-failed endpoint). Both of the l2tp drafts deal with trying to recover key pieces of the control plane that are not normally obtainable from the forwarding database - the sequence numbers of the control connection and the state (established or non-established) of each of the sessions. It would thus seem reasonable to resolve the differences between these drafts and produce as common an approach as possible to graceful restart. [pwh] btw - I misquoted the current version of the other draft - it's draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-02.txt 2) I don't understand the basic reset of the sequence number space for the control connection. Is this setting up a replacement tunnel or attempting to reset the sequence numbers of the extant tunnel? The tunnel is restarted almost exactly as in draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-11.txt One technical difference is the added AVP to advertise the graceful restart capability. Another difference is that while restarting the sessions certain information need to endure the restart (i.e. Session ID, Cookie value etc) that will allow the data path to continue without interruptions. [pwh] I'm not entirely clear on your answer. There would seem to be two basic approaches to recovery of the control connection - one is to establish an entirely new control connection and eventually transfer the sessions from the old control connection to the new control connection; the other is to reset the extant control connection, It's not clear to me from your answer or the draft which direction you are proposing. So, when I attempt to restart a control connection by sending an SCCRQ with the GR AVP and a non-zero recovery time, what is the value of the Assigned Control Connection Id AVP? Is it the same as the one from the initial establishment (implies reset of the extant control connection) or a new value (implies a recovery control connection and transfer of the sessions from the old to the new) [Sharon Galtzur] I agree this is indeed missing from the draft - The pro and con of each approach are as follow: 1. If we remember the the CC ID - we gain a bit more confidence when we looking up the CC in the LCCE that wasn't restart, because we have more information to compare to when recovering the CC. The drawback is that the restarted LCCE must have the means to remember this information (since this information is NOT a part of the data path and hence is not transferred to the data path parts of the system). 2. If we don't remember the CC ID - we lose some confidence when we looking up the CC (but really not more then when doing normal restart). The gain is that there is no need for this information to be persistent. Currently I would think that not remembering the CC ID from restart to restart is preferred because it is less restrictive and is more close to the non-graceful restart requirements. I would like to hear from others what they think before I update the draft. 3) It would appear that there is a linear relationship between the number of packets required for the fail over and the number of established sessions. This would seem to present issues with scalability. The behavior of the graceful restart proposal is not worse then normal start of L2TPv3 (since the mechanism of the graceful and non graceful restart are practically the same). If there is scalability issue in this proposal it is inherit to the whole L2TP model and not restricted to the proposed graceful restart [pwh] IMHO, there is a scability problem that needs to be addressed. When a failover occurs, the failed endpoint is in the process of trying to recover it's state not only for L2TP, but for all other applications running in the failed endpoint (e.g. IP, BGP, PPP, AAA, etc.). It is a time of maximum stress on the failed endpoint coupled with restrictive time limits (e.g. BGP neighbor notifications). Failover processes needs to be designed with minimal resource consumption. This draft proposes 'n' packets to be sent from the failed endpoint to the non-failed endpoint where 'n' is the number of sessions between the 2 endpoints. This results in 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of packets to complete the recovery. In order to avoid this issue, it would seem that the session recovery needs to be able to recover by packing multiple session recoveries per packet - thus reducing to n/m packets where m is the number of recoveries per packet. As the primary recovery requirement for the session is to confirm that both endpoints believe the session to be in established state, this could reduce to sending the session id's of the established sessions from the failed endpoint to the non-failed endpoint followed by the non-failed endpoint sending back the session ids of the established sessions based on the intersection of what it received from the failed endpoint and it's local database. Assuming say 256 session ids packed in a single packet (1K of data), then we end up with 2 * n / 256 packets to recover. Thus with 100,000 sessions only 782 packets are required to recover instead of 100,000+ packets. [Sharon Galtzur] The same can be said for the current L2TP non-graceful restart. It is probably even more pressing since there is no data flow till the connections are restarted. The big advantage I see in this approach is that it is so similar to normal L2TP model. This will allow implementers of L2TP stacks to implement one model of establishing sessions instead of 2. I would suggest that if there is a real concern of connecting 100k connection between 2 LCCE we should re-examine the possibility of establishing multiple sessions connection using 1 packet instead of requiring 1 packet per session in the non-graceful restart and then adopt it to the graceful restart mode. Thanx, Paul Howard W. Mark Townsley wrote: I would like to ask that interested parties review the following draft "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (Version 3) Graceful Restart" and provide comments to the list. This draft was originally presented in Vienna, and updated based on comments during the meeting. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-galtzur-l2tpext-gr-01.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-galtzur-l2tpext-gr-01.txt> The authors would like to make this a WG document. Thanks, - Mark _______________________________________________ L2tpext mailing list L2tpext@ietf.org <mailto:L2tpext@ietf.org> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext> _______________________________________________ L2tpext mailing list L2tpext@ietf.org <mailto:L2tpext@ietf.org> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>
- [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2tpext… W. Mark Townsley
- Re: [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2t… Paul W. Howard
- RE: [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2t… Sharon Galtzur
- Re: [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2t… Paul W. Howard
- RE: [L2tpext] Please comment on draft-galtzur-l2t… Sharon Galtzur
- [L2tpext] draft-galtzur-l2tpext-gr-01.txt and dra… W. Mark Townsley