Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 25 April 2015 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B341A89BB for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 mJV5Y2xAAQrT for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F28EE1A8998 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3PGHk2F032567; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:17:46 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3PGHirF032544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:17:45 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Nobo Akiya' <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
References: <BY1PR0501MB14303A3E86F750CF628B7234A50E0@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BY1PR0501MB143031F1768A8854BA4CB30EA5E70@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAFqGwGuKaR-pRiCS9hnzD0mGmY1dRWd2LANgaBf4MJdT+MYRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <001901d0786b$0c1ceb40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAFqGwGsq2hZOnQWpzZuwvqAnGvNdmkE3bUkxk6LS9NZ6VOf10Q@mail.gmail.com> <00f701d07a80$44770e00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAFqGwGuxK85W3anJ6omabHw+16HhUtSdw_yrsdt-weS1Z-abNw@mail.gmail.com> <55379EE5.8000801@pi.nu> <033c01d07db5$0ecb4720$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <5538EC97.8050204@pi.nu> <020701d07e1e$a79bf940$f6d3ebc0$@olddog.co.uk> <CAFqGwGtt72yTA7yDd_yHG5ad6=HhpRg_1VE2Xtziguqf=KbUUg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFqGwGtt72yTA7yDd_yHG5ad6=HhpRg_1VE2Xtziguqf=KbUUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:17:43 +0100
Message-ID: <008801d07f73$5cbb74e0$16325ea0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0089_01D07F7B.BE96C040"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQPgMp+F85EfvPJp+pmFDDXz24DS/gHDk72sAiR8PsAB8lbRgwI+M4C/AbBgzsoBy3FM4wIy3pA3Avr9XeoBa+ZcUgJAy7jfAwGha6OYgvUKsA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21504.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--50.067-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--50.067-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFrWoi+XHWon+PT+KclxuHvfC/ExpXrHizyrzPs85fwUk9Ev k7xjlIKiHRMPIwK2jF8uFh/dlvL8Y0hz7X71rimzyKTEsCRIdyXRahuPwaQ1WrrfxlRjqBJ3YXC agLTSWEgESz5E/KsaGTOhQ0C0WOxy/csI8LvNTh5CnGIuUMP0VSPclXBzQ1O2RancUUfiVbjKYq rHyR0jK32VMDa97gjg4CfdMQz5dC9fk8ZX+zIo8cNrWpY804TGviRliDV2nywZ4vA+WJA5l0aQE MtcnqMIH9NHCwoYsb0YugfIlA6Ib38b147nSU7Wk3ewifG2MNNB+8LAeeOOMN14Aqe8EzF8aWb+ H6zFWThuuBQngKeoeKoSMdHwVfcFkBulMq39Dyj2Ii0VSfdeQ7tq3FNsoMQgC13My87/LbQy5PB tqoQlk0C4ZMe/DiRRUhabRrhnHIygddUZJmqh3obBPrt55wnwvQOhxZnSGuFX14Hy+eYp79Fc6x qZVtGPTs49mYvM8bQQbi0n2beMrA7AfikPXgOwSLUcLhCXdt9R3sGN+j7mNHaIualmA7qVU8pDi DQQ0FPwOGawsB401abF+zkwZnVPDD8u5q9hbJhWgOVCl/hN1bSIuYdn4LPsw62uSG5kL1ZB+3z+ jGoJX7XalXqfrxweB9VrRw1/5wRYWIOyy+I0L7iMC5wdwKqdknjBMY7iKBLSauv9hRXQJJ2uxZk juzqv5iOY/O9iNZEqU8hdO034F9l+dy3lQHNxQ1OcCEvT+bfTBg/CbgV2T2sxtqQk3w55MqCUTV mFLuARwZrwJu2pACSE5ZCidiJk7nVkzMb2RnKeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1B0Hk1Q1KyKrF5UpO UNpcCumhPWBpBAYkGUtrowrXLg=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7DGhXRO1qkQfCCfi1gWRAqAvbCk>
Cc: 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org, 'Ross Callon' <rcallon@juniper.net>, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:17:56 -0000

Hi Nobo,
 
Let's come back to my original review comments.
 
> Section 3.2 gives clear instructions and guidance on forming the Reply
> Mode Order TLV but not on what to do if a received TLV deviates from the
> MUST and MUST NOT instructions. Options might include ignoring errors,
> ignoring the TLV, ignoring the message. But presumably not sending an
> error response (because how would you know how to send it?)
 
You responded:
 
| [NOBO] That’s a good point. What the document really state is that The
| Reply Mode value 5 (Reply via Specified Path) MAY be repeated but all 
| other Reply Mode values MUST NOT be repeated. Will update the
| document to make it clear.
 
That's a fine thing to say, but doesn't answer my question about how an implementation is supposed to behave when a received Reply Mode Order TLV is "malformed".
 
You posted draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02. Section 3.2 swapped the order of points 4 and 5, and enhanced the text to read...
 
   4.  If a responder LSR understands the Reply Mode Order TLV but the
       TLV is not valid (due to conditions described in the items 6, 8
       and 9 immediately below), then the responder LSR MUST only use
       the value described in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo
       request.
 
That seems to cover most bases. Good.
It might also be helpful to say "...the responder LSR MUST silently ignore the whole Reply Mode Order TLV and MUST only use the value from the Reply Mode field of the received MPLS echo request."
Saying this helps clarify the behavior.
 
The only things I don't find covered are:
 
a. how to handle a violation of the seventh point
 
   7.  A Reply Mode value, except for Reply Mode value 5 (Reply via
       Specified Path), MUST NOT be repeated (i.e., MUST NOT appear
       multiple times) in the Reply Mode Order TLV.
 
   I think you can address this by adding "7" to the list of conditions in point 4.
 
b. how to handle a violation of the second point
 
   2. The Reply Mode Order TLV MUST NOT be included in MPLS echo reply.
 
   I think this will need additional text.
 
I note that after the numbered bullets you also now have the following text...
 
   If a responder LSR receives a Reply Mode Order TLV which does not
   comply to the rules described above, then the responder LSR MUST
   ignore the Reply Mode Order TLV.
 
This is better than point 4 and covers everything.
You might consider whether "ignore" means "silently ignore" or whether you want to give advice about logging. It seems probable that (because of the nature of ping) if you do suggest logging, you also want to describe some form of thresholding or damping.
 
 
To address Loa's concern...
The TLV is from the optional range. It can be ignored if it is not understood, and does not require to be included.
Loa asserted that the document says that the TLV MUST be included, but I don't find this in -02.
Therefore, I think this is all fine.
 
Adrian
 
From: Nobo Akiya [mailto:nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com] 
Sent: 25 April 2015 05:50
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Loa Andersson; t.petch; Ross Callon; mpls; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
 
Hi Adrian, Tom, Loa,
 
This extension is currently structured such that it allows for backwards compatibility (i.e., transit LSR not supporting this mechanism will not return "malformed request" ... because the TLV is optional).
 
The result is that this mechanism becomes a best effort mechanism, and we will not get the full benefit until all LSRs along the LSP (and other LSRs which could falsely receive the echo request) implements this extension.
 
One way to allow the initiator LSR to determine whether or not the responder LSR understood this TLV, and still keeping the backwards compatibility, is that we keep the Reply Mode Order TLV as an optional TLV, but require (i.e., MUST) the responder LSR understanding this TLV to include the Reply Mode Order TLV in the echo reply, potentially with result of parsing/handling that TLV.
 
However, that's probably not the path we want to go, as all (or most) optional TLVs will have to do something similar (i.e., include the same TLV in the echo reply). This will quickly result in echo reply packet bloat ... we should prevent that as echo reply usually tends to include more information (ILS, DSMAP/DDMAP per nexthop, multipath Sub-TLVs per nexthop, etc).
 
To me, the right way to solve this is to create a capability TLV that mandates the reponder LSR to return which features it supports in bitmaps or something very compact. But this can be done in a separate effort/draft.
 
In short, my preference for this document is to go as is (after incorporating comments from Tom).
 
Thanks!
 
-Nobo
 
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Loa,

You captured it. The edge cases need to be nailed down.

Personally I have no particular preference for where it is nailed, but I don't
want it flapping in the breeze.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: 23 April 2015 13:59
> To: t.petch; Nobo Akiya
> Cc: Ross Callon; mpls; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org;
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-
> mode-simple@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end of WGLC, RE: working
group
> last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
>
> Tom,
>
> The question you and Adrian asks is what to do if the Reply Mode
> Order TLV is missing.
>
> There is something fishy here, I'd like George to look at this.
>
> The LSP Ping design says that TLVs from this range may be silentsly
> dropped, my take is that we don't need to specify anything more
> than that.
>
> Now, we say that it MUST be present, and after thinking around a bit
> I wonder if the TLV should be assigned from the mandatory range instead?
>
> Or if the MUST be present means that the message will be malformed if
> it is not there, and the message should be discarded.
>
> OK - now I'm confused.
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2015-04-23 13:02, t.petch wrote:
> > ---- Original Message -----
> > From: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:15 PM
> >
> >> Tom,
> >>
> >> On 2015-04-20 00:07, Nobo Akiya wrote:
> >>>      <tp>
> >>>
> >>>      Yes but ... I think that it is a change of meaning.  Is is
> > enough just
> >>>      to ignore the TLV or should the whole PDU be discarded?  I find
> > it
> >>>      difficult to know but don't feel strongly about that choice so
> > will go
> >>>      with what you suggest.
> >>>
> >>>      </tp>
> >>
> >> So I don't misunderstand what you are saying. It seems to me like the
> >> comments made by Adrian and you actually requires a "change of
> > meaning",
> >> that is kind of essence of a "comment", right?
> >>
> >> As for what to do with if the TLV is not recognized, it is
> >> intentionally requested from a space where it can be silently dropped
> >> (i.e. "ignored").
> >>
> >>      The new TLV Type value should be assigned from the range
> >>      (32768-49161) specified in [RFC4379] section 3 that allows the TLV
> >>      type to be silently dropped if not recognized.
> >>
> >>        Type   Meaning                            Reference
> >>        ----   -------                            ---------
> >>        TBD1   Reply Mode Order TLV               this document
> >>
> >> What is it that I miss?
> >
> > Nothing serious.  My initial thought was to echo Adrian, that, at least
> > in this context, there should be an indication what to do if a MUST or
> > SHOULD was violated without just then having a clear sense of what it
> > should be instead.
> >
> > The I-D did require (MUST) one entry in the TLV and wanted (SHOULD)
> > more.  Adding what to do if that did not happen I was seeing as
> > clarification.  I then read Nobo as proposing going a bit further saying
> > requires (MUST) one or more.  Which might lead to boxes taking a
> > simplistic approach and always putting in the new TLV with a single
> > entry and ignoring the traditional TLV.  Not a problem just a change
> > from what others might think that they have consented to.
> >
> > On the question of what to do when the rules are violated, again I did
> > not initially think of what the action should be.  On reflection, I am
> > still unsure.  I understand that the Reply Mode Order TLV  is optional
> > and so can be ignored when not understood; that's fine.  But if it is
> > understood and can be seen to be defective, should the box with that
> > knowledge discard just that TLV and accept the remainder of the message?
> > Or should it argue that if this TLV is defective, then likely the rest
> > is as well and should be ignored?  I am unsure.
> >
> > If there is scope for a breach of security, or taking a hit in
> > performance, then ignore is the right policy. If the requirement is to
> > get as much data as possible from a failing network, then use it is the
> > right policy.  As long as the I-D is clear, I am not too fussed which
> > way it goes.  I am content with the changes that Nobo has proposed.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >> /Loa
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> >> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> >> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64 <tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064> 
> >
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64 <tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls