Re: [lisp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> Tue, 18 September 2018 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fmaino@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA01130E35; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 8RHSmZ9mFAIy; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 967FE120072; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20483; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1537300378; x=1538509978; h=from:subject:to:cc:references:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=r3xZNIiKEtGQfklKBUI9j1lhEzD3rDradKu94SJ5uaw=; b=K/A0HOL1cc5M3xV2y4AEHlxJipgcg0P9Ue9nGeR+RqEygeF0i6b5MYvY u+120Xn/wSTrt/cpnM0R38NVRYwVlNLqgtOfJx6MrFpFN4Ag4Qtw2ocTu KE4JpnuVQdencgxKO8Cgd4dWblnWaAZ1obTQnHbFkLESJPlNh+ANIYW8L w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ArAAB4VqFb/4ENJK1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYFRgVgFKmV/KINylESBYC2REYU7gXoLI4RJAoMmITUXAQM?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBAQJtHAyFOQEFIyQyEAsYKgICVwYBDAYCAQGDHQGCAQ+lH4EuH4MKgQY?= =?us-ascii?q?GQoUSBYptF4FBP4ESJ4JrgxsCAwGBNoMoglcCiBkghiGNdwmGQoMEhlUGF4F?= =?us-ascii?q?DhEyCXYYoi2uIf4FDATaBVTMaCBsVgyeCJRd6AQeHV4VeHzCKe4JMAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,391,1531785600"; d="scan'208,217";a="454114877"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Sep 2018 19:52:56 +0000
Received: from [10.32.172.181] ([10.32.172.181]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w8IJquQc007825; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:52:56 GMT
From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, tsv-art@ietf.org
Cc: lisp@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-gpe.all@ietf.org
References: <153553422964.14784.628403975182959075@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <f5930d34-4e3b-a800-4c59-b8b46fd78b73@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:52:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <153553422964.14784.628403975182959075@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------36B296874702ADB3BC3A9A5E"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.32.172.181, [10.32.172.181]
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/1JyNVPZHiIhfb6hVGbJ2kIaUcY4>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:53:02 -0000

Hi Magnus,
thanks for your comments.

I think I see the points you are making.

I'll add the section 3.1 below to specify the general transport 
requirements for the registration of new LISP-GPE payloads, and I will 
introduce two subsections to instantiate those requirements for Ethernet 
and NSH (section 4.2 and 4.3 will be moved here). In the "IANA 
Considerations" section I'll refer to this new section 3.1 as a 
requirement for registration of new encapsulated payload.

"3.1 Payload Specific Transport Interactions

To ensure that protocols that are encapsulated in LISP-GPE will work 
well from a transport interaction perspective, the specification of a 
new encapsulated payload MUST contain an analysis of how LISP-GPE SHOULD 
deal with outer UDP Checksum, DSCP mapping, and Explicit Congestion 
Notification (ECN) bits whenever they apply to the new encapsulated payload.

For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies 
how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP 
checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is 
desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. Each new 
encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be 
accompanied by a similar analysis.

Encapsulated payloads may have a priority field that may or may not be 
mapped to the DSCP field of the outer IP header (part of Type of Service 
in IPv4 or Traffic Class in IPv6). Such new encapsulated payloads, when 
registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be accompanied by an analysis similar to 
the one performed in Section 3.1.1 of this document for Ethernet payloads.

Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification 
mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN 
field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP-GPE, 
MUST  be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from 
[draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040].

The rest of this section specifies payload specific transport 
interactions considerations for the two new LISP-GPE encapsulated 
payloads specified in this document: Ethernet and NSH.

3.1.1 Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet Encapsulated 
Payloads

The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of 
[draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads. 
Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage 
guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to protect 
UDP, LISP and Ethernet headers against corruption.

When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 802.1Q 
[IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be mapped from 
the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in the outer IPv4 
header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' field as per 
guidelines provided by [RFC8325].

When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner header 
802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, or used to 
determine the LISP Instance ID field.

3.1.2 Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH Encapsulated Payloads

The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of 
[draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to NSH Encapsulated Payloads. 
Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage 
guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to protect 
UDP, LISP, and NSH headers against corruption.

When a LISP-GPE router performs an NSH encapsulation, DSCP and ECN 
values MAY be mapped as specified for the Next Protocol encapsulated by 
NSH (namely IPv4, IPv6 and Ethernet)."


I will also add a paragraph to "Iana Considerations" that says:


"To ensure that protocols that are encapsulated in LISP-GPE will work 
well from a transport interaction perspective, the registration of a new 
encapsulated payload MUST contain an analysis of how LISP-GPE SHOULD 
deal with outer UDP Checksum, DSCP mapping, and Explicit Congestion 
Notification (ECN) bits whenever they apply to the new encapsulated 
payload. The analysis for the new encapsulated payload registered in 
this document is in section 3.1."

Please, let me know if this address your comments.

Thanks,
Fabio



On 8/29/18 2:17 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund
> Review result: Not Ready
>
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area directorate's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
> authors and WG for their information and to allow them to address any issues
> raised.
>
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review together with any other last-call comments they receive.
> Please always CCtsv-art@ietf.org  if you reply to or forward this review.
>
> Issue A.
>
> The reason I state Not Ready has to do with this documents failure to consider
> the use of zero checksum for IPv6 when tunneling other things than IP. The none
> GPE version is limited to tunnel IP for which the analysis for use of zero
> checksum has been done. Each of the new tunneled protocols that are specified
> in this document, i.e. ethernet and NHS, will need to perform the analysis if
> they are safe to use zero checksum or not, and if not disallow zero checksum
> for IPv6/UDP. The documetn also need a requirement in the registration
> requirements to perform this analysis and defined if zero checksum is
> acceptable or not.
>
> Citing Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis
>
>     UDP Checksum:  The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero
>        by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 encapsulation
>        [RFC6935] [RFC6936].  When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is
>        received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
>        decapsulation.  When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
>        checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
>        When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY
>        choose to verify the checksum value.  If it chooses to perform
>        such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
>        silently dropped.  If the ETR chooses not to perform the
>        verification, or performs the verification successfully, the
>        packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation.  The handling of UDP
>        zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including
>        LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].
>
> The issue is that when LISP encapsulate other protocols the impact of a
> missdelivered tunnel packet to the wrong ETR can have different impacts. As
> well as errors in the headers of the encapsulated packet that may be assumed to
> be protected by the encapsulating layer. Thus, individual analysis of each
> protocol that are tunneled are needed.
>
> B.) 4.2.  Type of Service
>
>     When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
>     802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be
>     mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in
>     the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class'
>     field.
>
> Any recommendation about how to perform that mapping? Maybe parts of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8325/  are relevant in this context.
>
> C. General case of 4.2:
>
> I expect other protocols than Ethernet may have a priority field that may or
> may not be mapped to the DSCP field of the tunnel packet.
>
> I would expect that for new protocol registration in the LISP-GPE Next Protocol
> Registry should consider this. Thus, it would be good to note that such
> considerations are needed and part of what should be evaluated for new
> registrations.
>
> D. ECN handling
>
> Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis states:
>
>     o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
>        of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
>        order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].
>        ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
>        header to the outer header.  Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
>        'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer
>        header.
>
> The above rules may not be applicable for all transport protocols. Thus I think
> it is required that one do protocol specific considerations of ECN. TSVWG are
> working on recommendations for tunnels handling of  ECN here, see:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines/  Thus,
> my expectation would be to ensure that the registered protocols have defined
> ECN handling, explicitly or by reference. Secondly that registration
> requirement states the need for this consideration.
>
> Summary: To ensure that future added protocols that are encapsulated will work
> well from a transport interaction perspective there need to be a requirement on
> new registration to consider and define how they use zero checksum, any DSCP
> mapping and ECN bits. In addition the current document needs to ensure these
> things are clearly specified for the encapsulated protocols in this document.
>
>