Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sat, 22 December 2018 04:29 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843F0130FFF; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 20:29:52 -0800 (PST)
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 XY312I0FKg7h; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 20:29:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu [18.7.68.36]) (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 2428D130FFB; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 20:29:48 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074424-9cbff70000003214-93-5c1dbdb89d55
Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 7E.26.12820.9BDBD1C5; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:29:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.9.2) with ESMTP id wBM4ThWr026224; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:29:44 -0500
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id wBM4TeSE031084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:29:42 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 22:29:40 -0600
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181222042939.GW94620@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <154398144445.4943.7198735398003216566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5C079200.1030701@cisco.com> <20181217055358.GC94620@kduck.kaduk.org> <69190220-4994-f9c9-4adf-5016abf3a39b@cisco.com> <03e6354b-c606-fc4a-bbf2-3d59fa1cb774@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <03e6354b-c606-fc4a-bbf2-3d59fa1cb774@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupkleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRYrdT1921VzbGoHGPkcXkt/OYLW4c2sBk sXZaF7PFjD8TmS3WXz3JYnHiyQpWix2729kc2D2m/N7I6rFz1l12jyVLfjIFMEdx2aSk5mSW pRbp2yVwZXy4qlOwpYux4kGfXwPj8ewuRk4OCQETiZ6jXaxdjFwcQgJrmCTmbulmgnA2Mkoc OnCUGcK5wyTxcOMMFpAWFgFVicYnrewgNpuAikRD92VmEFsEyJ53vYcFpIFZ4AyjxI7zp8Aa hAVqJaZNnANWxAu07+zVJ2wQU/8wSqyZCFHEKyAocXLmEzCbWUBL4sa/l0B3cADZ0hLL/3GA hDkFbCX2THnIAhIWBVr2eYHABEaBWUiaZyFpnoXQvICReRWjbEpulW5uYmZOcWqybnFyYl5e apGuuV5uZoleakrpJkZwiLuo7GDs7vE+xCjAwajEw2vxRSZGiDWxrLgy9xCjJAeTkiivyjTZ GCG+pPyUyozE4oz4otKc1OJDjBIczEoivB22QOW8KYmVValF+TApaQ4WJXHePyKPo4UE0hNL UrNTUwtSi2CyMhwcShK81ruBhgoWpaanVqRl5pQgpJk4OEGG8wAN1wWmBCHe4oLE3OLMdIj8 KUZFKXFeXpBmAZBERmkeXC8oBUlk7695xSgO9Iowr+QeoCoeYPqC634FNJgJaDCXE8jVxSWJ CCmpBsbEwGdefwzL/0snn3idqzPzqsnPXQ4PIkONFnlNqLP64VYV0Pr23scb01+oHtpycc6l eR0iH3POXf2/7u2nZz8ZvB78uP1p1rLV/2KCJh/K+dyVyRTtd77lZuNNSbaAl7VX9+g93/v/ qrC7getFbpGeIp4gix/324I9q4q3rOXdHRyqUyr+IuK3EktxRqKhFnNRcSIAH8UHsBwDAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/dxVHPxv0kjWld5CIj_J7BPKMsEM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:29:52 -0000

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:07:59PM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> are you ok with my responses and proposed changed text for the range?
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> On 17/12/2018 12:32 , Peter Psenak wrote:
> > Hi Benjamin,
> >
> > please see inline (##PP):
> >
> > On 17/12/2018 06:53 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >> Sorry for the slow reply -- you caught me right as I was leaving for
> >> vacation.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:53:20AM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote:
> >>> Hi Benjamin,
> >>>
> >>> please see inline:
> >>>
> >>> On 05/12/18 04:44 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >>>> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> >>>> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: Discuss
> >>>>
> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> >>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> >>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please refer to
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> DISCUSS:
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the extensibility model for the "AF" (address family) field
> >>>> in the
> >>>> OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV?  That is, what do we need to say
> >>>> about
> >>>> current implementations' behavior to allow future changes?  (I also a
> >>>> little bit wonder if we really need a full eight bits, but that's
> >>>> basically
> >>>> aesthetic.)
> >>>
> >>> I don't think OSPFv3 will ever support other then IPv6 or IPv4 AF. Also
> >>> the text says:
> >>>
> >>> "Prefix encoding for other address families is beyond the scope
> >>>   of this specification."
> >>
> >> Perhaps it would be better encoded in a 1-bit field (rather than an 8-bit
> >> one), then?  That would at least make the (lack of) semantics of the
> >> other
> >> 7 bits more clear, as the usual "MUST set to zero on transmit and
> >> ignore on
> >> receipt".
> >
> > ##PP
> > it's too late now to change the encoding. This draft has several years
> > of history and there are implementation shipping. Changing the encoding
> > would cause the backward compatibility issues.

I didn't think I was suggesting changing the bits on the wire -- in an
8-octet field, we're encoding the values 0 and 1 as:

00000000
00000001

I'm proposing to change the eight bits to be specified as "the first seven
bits are always set to 0 but should be ignored on receipt; the eighth bit
represents the 0 or 1 value".  This makes it clear what needs to happen if
there's a need to use any of those seven bits (an Update to this document)
and also makes it more clear that there are not expected to be any
additional AFs defined anytime soon.

Could you help me understand what would be backward incompatible with this
proposal?

> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of the text in Section 8.1 (see the COMMENT section) reads like it
> >>>> might have an "Updates" relationship with other documents, but I
> >>>> don't know
> >>>> enough to be sure.  Hopefully we can have a conversation to clarify the
> >>>> situation.
> >>>
> >>> please see my comments below.
> >>
> >> Okay.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> COMMENT:
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 1
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a start of the separate document that covers SR with the
> >>>> IPv6 data
> >>>> plane that we could reference from here?
> >>>
> >>> this document describes OSPFv3 extension for SR with the MPLS data
> >>> plane, not IPv6 data plane. And rfc8402 is referenced.
> >>
> >> I understand the difference between OSPFv3 SR with MPLS vs. IPv6 data
> >> plane
> >> (well, at least that there is a difference).  My point is that you say it
> >> "will be specified in a separate document".  If there's an existing I-D
> >> that is the start of this work, listing it as an informative reference
> >> seems helpful to me.  (If there's not, perhaps "at a later date" would
> >> work
> >> instead of "in a separate document".)
> >>
> >> But of course this is a non-blocking comment, so feel free to ignore -- I
> >> really don't mind.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 5
> >>>>
> >>>>     In some cases it is useful to advertise attributes for a range of
> >>>>     prefixes.  The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is
> >>>> described in
> >>>>     [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop], is an example of
> >>>> where
> >>>>     a single advertisement is needed to advertise SIDs for multiple
> >>>>     prefixes from a contiguous address range.
> >>>>
> >>>> I note that the referenced document does not use the word "range" to
> >>>> describe the prefix being assigned multiple SIDs; it might be
> >>>> helpful to
> >>>> say a few more words about how the range of prefixes gets mapped to
> >>>> what is
> >>>> discussed in the linked document.
> >>>
> >>>   "prefix being assigned multiple SIDs" - that is not what we are doing
> >>> here.
> >>
> >> Hmm, I must have misspoke; sorry.  My point remains, though, that if I
> >> go to
> >> I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop and search for "range", I
> >> will
> >> not find anything to help me know which part of that document you are
> >> talking about.  I would encourage some additional text to clarify how the
> >> terminology used in this document relates to the terminology and work
> >> used
> >> in the referenced document.
> >
> > ##PP
> > range is not defined in I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop,
> > it's the SRMS functionality that is defined there.
> > The range was defined for IGPs to optimize the encoding for SRMS
> > advertisement - with thousands of prefixes the encoding would not scale
> > if we advertise the individual SID for every prefix independently.
> >
> > What about the following updated text in the OSPFv3 draft:
> >
> > "In some cases it is useful to advertise attributes for a range of
> > prefixes. The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described in
> > <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop"/>, is an
> > example of where SIDs for multiple prefixes can be advertised. To
> > optimize such advertisement in case of multiple prefixes from a
> > contiguous address range, OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV is defined."

That's a big help, at least for me; thanks!
I wonder if the first sentence would be better as "useful to advertise
attributes for many prefixes at once", but will definitely defer to your
judgement of that.

-Benjamin

> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm also not entirely sure how to construct the prefix range just given
> >>>> this format description.  Suppose I have an IPv4 prefix of 18.18/16
> >>>> and a
> >>>> range size of 4; my prefix length is 16 and the address prefix is
> >>>> encoded
> >>>> as 0x120120000.  Am I then representing the four prefixes 18.18/16,
> >>>> 18.19/16, 18.20/16, and 18.21/16?
> >>>
> >>> yes.
> >>>
> >>>> Or am I constrained to be a subset of
> >>>> 18.18/18 (in which case I don't know what the actual distinct prefixes
> >>>> would be)?  The examples in Section 6 suggests the former, but I
> >>>> would suggest
> >>>> stating this explictly, here.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I would thing that the example in section 16 is clear enough.
> >>
> >> I generally prefer to describe the normative behavior in actual text
> >> description instead of relying on examples to clarify the expected
> >> behavior.  That said, this is a non-blocking comment, so feel free to
> >> retain the current text.  If you did want to add something, I would
> >> propose the strawman:
> >>
> >> OLD:
> >>    The range represents the contiguous set of prefixes with the same
> >>    prefix length as specified by the Prefix Length field.  The set
> >>    starts with the prefix that is specified by the Address Prefix field.
> >>    The number of prefixes in the range is equal to the Range size.
> >>
> >> NEW:
> >>    The range represents the contiguous set of prefixes with the same
> >>    prefix length as specified by the Prefix Length field.  The set
> >>    starts with the prefix that is specified by the Address Prefix
> >> field and
> >>    continues with the subsequent prefixes of the same length, forming a
> >>    contiguous block of addresses.  Since the Range Size is not
> >> restricted to a
> >>    power of two, this new block of addresses may not be describable
> >> using a
> >>    single address prefix/length.  The number of prefixes in the range is
> >>    equal to the Range size.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Section 6
> >>>>
> >>>> Should there be any discussion of the historical or future reasons
> >>>> why V
> >>>> and L are separate flag bits, given that the only legal combinations
> >>>> are
> >>>> currently 00 and 11, i.e., fully redundant?
> >>>
> >>> I would rather not get into that discussion here.
> >>
> >> That's fine, though even just noting the redundancy and that it exists
> >> for
> >> [historical/...] reasons might help some readers understand more easily.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> It may not be necessary to expand ASBR on first usage here, since
> >>>> it's in
> >>>> the terminology section (and marked as "well-known" at
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt).
> >>>
> >>> ASBR is defined in terminology section.
> >>
> >> Precisely; you can just use the abbreviation if you want and make the
> >> text
> >> here shorter.
> >
> > ##PP
> > done.
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>     If the NP-Flag is not set, then any upstream neighbor of the
> >>>> Prefix-
> >>>>     SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID.  This is equivalent to the
> >>>>     penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane.
> >>>> If the
> >>>>     NP-flag is not set, then the received E-flag is ignored.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it going to be clear that "pop" only applies when this Prefix-SID
> >>>> is the
> >>>> outermost label?  (Or am I super-confused about how this is supposed to
> >>>> work?)
> >>>
> >>> you can only POP the outmost label.
> >>
> >> Okay, thanks for confirming.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> A similar consideration may apply to the discussion of the NP flag
> >>>> as well.
> >>>> Also some redundantly expanded ABR and ASBR here as well.
> >>>>
> >>>>                This is useful, e.g., when the originator of the Prefix-
> >>>>        SID is the final destination for the related prefix and the
> >>>>        originator wishes to receive the packet with the original EXP
> >>>>        bits.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are we still supposed to call these the EXP bits after RFC 5462?  (I
> >>>> had to
> >>>> look up what they were; not sure if this means that we should put a
> >>>> reference in for them or not, given that I'm not a practitioner here.)
> >>>
> >>> I can rename to "Traffic Class" if you insist.
> >>
> >> I do not insist; I'm just trying to understand the common
> >> usage/conventions.
> >
> > ##PP
> > it has been updated.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Peter
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>     When the M-Flag is set, the NP-flag and the E-flag MUST be
> >>>> ignored on
> >>>>     reception.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do I understand this correctly that this is because the mapping
> >>>> server may
> >>>> not know the needs of the individual routers, and if the routers had
> >>>> specific needs they should advertise the SIDs directly (which would
> >>>> take
> >>>> precedence over the mapping server's advertisement)?  If so, given the
> >>>> following discussion, I wouldn't suggest adding any extra text about
> >>>> it,
> >>>> but I do want to make sure I'm understanding it properly.
> >>>
> >>> your understanding is correct. There is also some more details in the
> >>> next section.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     When a Prefix-SID is advertised in the OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range
> >>>>     TLV, then the value advertised in the Prefix SID Sub-TLV is
> >>>>     interpreted as a starting SID/Label value.
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I remembering correctly that Prefix-SID can appear multiple times
> >>>> within
> >>>> OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range?  Then each Prefix-SID would be
> >>>> indicating a
> >>>> distinct range but adhering to the same parameters of the range that
> >>>> are
> >>>> indicated in the Extended Prefix Range TLV?  This seems a little
> >>>> weird on
> >>>> the face of it (as opposed to a single Prefix-SID sub-TLV per Extended
> >>>> Prefix Range), but maybe there's a use case that I'm missing on first
> >>>> glance.
> >>>
> >>> the use case is when you need to advertise Prefix-SID for different
> >>> Algorithms.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 7.1
> >>>>
> >>>> (Probably off-topic: what's the use case for assigning the same
> >>>> Adj-SID to
> >>>> different adjacencies?)
> >>>
> >>> load balancing of traffic over multiple links.
> >>
> >> Thanks for helping me understand better (here and above).
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 7.2
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps add DR to the terminology section (or expand on first usage)?
> >>>
> >>> ok, will do.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 8.1
> >>>>
> >>>>     When a Prefix-SID is advertised by the Mapping Server, which is
> >>>>     indicated by the M-flag in the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV (Section 6), the
> >>>>     route type as implied by the LSA type is ignored and the Prefix-SID
> >>>>     is bound to the corresponding prefix independent of the route type.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this considered to be Update-ing the behavior of another RFC?
> >>>
> >>> no. All we say is that the LSA type in which the SID from SRMS is
> >>> advertised does not need to match the route-type of the prefix for which
> >>> the SID is adverised.
> >>
> >> Okay, thanks.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>     Advertisement of the Prefix-SID by the Mapping Server using an
> >>>> Inter-
> >>>>     Area Prefix TLV, External-Prefix TLV, or Intra-Area-Prefix TLV
> >>>>     [RFC8362] does not itself contribute to the prefix
> >>>> reachability.  The
> >>>>     NU-bit MUST be set in the PrefixOptions field of the LSA which is
> >>>>     used by the Mapping Server to advertise SID or SID Range, which
> >>>>     prevents the advertisement from contributing to prefix
> >>>> reachability.
> >>>>
> >>>> This MUST reads like it is restating an existing normative
> >>>> requirement from
> >>>> elsewhere (in which case we should probably just state it as fact and
> >>>> provide a reference).  Or is it a new requirement (in which case
> >>>> Updates:
> >>>> might be in order)?
> >>>
> >>> not sure I understand. NU-bit is defined in rfc5340. We are just reusing
> >>> it here. I can add a reference to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the pointer.  I was wondering whether RFC5340 itself would
> >> require the NU bit to be set in this situation -- from a quick skim, it
> >> seems that it does not, so there's nothing to do here (other than add
> >> that
> >> reference, if you want.)
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>     Area-scoped OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLVs are propagated
> >>>> between
> >>>>     areas.  Similar to propagation of prefixes between areas, an ABR
> >>>> only
> >>>>     propagates the OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV that it
> >>>> considers to
> >>>>     be the best from the set it received.  The rules used to pick the
> >>>>     best OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV are described in Section 5.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see any usage of "best" in Section 5; I do see direction to
> >>>> use the
> >>>> numerically smallest Instance ID when multiple Extended Prefix Range
> >>>> TLVs
> >>>> advertise *the exact same range*.  But this in and of itself does not
> >>>> safisfy the claim here that there is guidance to pick a single best
> >>>> Extended Prefix Range TLV, so I'm left confused as to what's
> >>>> supposed to
> >>>> happen.  Perhaps this was intended as a transition to Section 8.2
> >>>> instead
> >>>> of referring back to Section 5 (especially considering that Section
> >>>> 8.1 is
> >>>> supposed to be intra-area but this topic is inter-area)?
> >>>> (This sort of dangling/unclear internal reference would normally be a
> >>>> DISCUSS, but it seems very likely this is just a stale section
> >>>> number and
> >>>> not a real problem, so I'm keeping it in the COMMENT section for now.)
> >>>
> >>> right, I will remove the reference to section 5 and correct the text.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 8.4.1
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we need a reference for 2-Way and FULL?
> >>>
> >>> these are standard OSPF adjacency states.
> >>
> >> Okay.  Sorry for my ignorance here (and throughout), and thank you again
> >> for your patient explanations of the "basic concepts".
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 9
> >>>>
> >>>> I would normally expect some text about "IANA has made permanent the
> >>>> following temporary allocations" or similar, so the reader can
> >>>> quickly tell
> >>>> that this is not a case of codepoint squatting.
> >>>
> >>> well, I guess what is important is that the IANA allocations has been
> >>> made.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> -Benjamin
> >> .
> >>
> >
> > .
> >
>