Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Wed, 08 April 2020 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3823A0484; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 1OyIBHofU7r1; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:10:18 -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 A82313A0496; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 787B1ECA99AB63D0DA3F; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:10:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) by lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:10:14 +0100
Received: from DGGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.50) by lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:10:13 +0100
Received: from DGGEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.216]) by dggeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.50]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:10:07 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
CC: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01
Thread-Index: AdYIR9J7mClFBWOaQoqHGGT02ONvpAATvikAAAF6o4AAD4WyAAAYpGiAABQksoAAgFHCAABuod0w
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 02:10:06 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297A665DB@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <0f5701d60847$ed2a2230$c77e6690$@olddog.co.uk> <021fe116-b0f2-25f4-b9ee-55bce86d61f5@pi.nu> <10a901d608df$c4cee170$4e6ca450$@olddog.co.uk> <A0D1AB10-6554-4A41-819B-9948014E6070@cisco.com> <728d3f0d-62ae-6cab-d482-d2dec440a3f4@pi.nu> <DB7PR07MB5657D964AD1C0AC210DF26B5A0C70@DB7PR07MB5657.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <676fc25e-b8ef-4828-8926-798f1e95fb73@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <676fc25e-b8ef-4828-8926-798f1e95fb73@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.203.48]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7Kvba5UA8pzUTNaokccpGglhHZM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 02:10:26 -0000

Hi all,

Although I think the probability of using "Private Use" is low, I incline to agree with Tom here. It's safer to keep both the "Private Use" and "Experimental Use". And since we have been along with them for so many years, seems it's no harm to keep keeping them. 

Regards,
Mach 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 1:15 PM
> To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>om>; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> <cpignata@cisco.com>om>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Interesting, looks like we need to continue the discussion on this for a while.
> 
> Working group,
> 
> Please respond to this question:
> 
> For the LSP Ping registries do we need both the "Experimental Use" and
> "Private Use" allocation policies? If we do not need both, which can be
> dropped?
> 
> /Loa
> 
> PS
> 
> I have had a DOS attack against my mail server, it took us three days to fix
> everything.
> 
> On 04/04/2020 00:00, tom petch wrote:
> >
> > From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Loa Andersson
> > <loa@pi.nu>
> > Sent: 03 April 2020 07:23
> >
> > Carlos and Adrian,
> >
> > So for the current draft I'll use "Experimental Use" and remove
> > "Private Use", my rationale for that is that I get questions about
> > "Experimental Use", but so far has had no question of "Private Use".
> >
> > Working Group,
> >
> > Please comment on this, either support or objections.
> >
> > <tp>
> >
> > I think that you should keep both since they have different uses.
> Experimental is for us, the IETF, if we cannot quite make up our minds how to
> proceed yet.
> > Private use is for an organisation or group thereof to go their own way and
> fork from the work of the IETF.  This is not desirable but history shows that
> it happens and I think that MPLS OAM is an area where the chances of this
> are higher than with some IETF protocols.
> > If there is no private use, then such an organisation will camp on the
> Experimental which generates a problem for deployed code.
> >
> > TP
> >
> > /Loa
> > for the co-authors
> >
> > On 03/04/2020 02:38, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> 2020/04/02 ÎçÇ°7:13¡¢Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>¤Î¥á©`¥ë¥á©`¥ë:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Loa,
> >>>
> >>> I agree with your interpretation of 8126.
> >>>
> >>> I think that the challenge with "experiments on the open Internet" is
> that the experiments have to have built into them some way to protect
> against two experiments using the same codepoint. That's not usually done
> in my experience, meaning that the two allocation classes are often pretty
> similar. Maybe there is some difference in duration of the use of a code point.
> >>>
> >>> I'd certainly be happy with collapsing these registries to use just one
> range. I would say that keeping the resulting range small (just a few code
> points) is desirable.
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Carlos.
> >>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Adrian
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
> >>> Sent: 02 April 2020 11:31
> >>> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk;
> >>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org
> >>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01
> >>>
> >>> Adrian,
> >>>
> >>> This is to address your comment on "Private Use" and "Experimental
> >>> Use", we will review the rest of the comments and update as needed.
> >>>
> >>> On 02/04/2020 01:06, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a number of small editorials and some larger questions and
> >>>> issues set out below. I also have one question that has broader scope:
> >>>>
> >>>> For [IANA-MT] and [IANA-Sub-6] you now have both 'Private Use' and
> >>>> 'Experimental Use'. I struggle to see how this makes sense. The
> >>>> uses decribed in RFC 8126 are sufficiently similar that it is
> >>>> unusual to have both categories defined for a single registry. I
> >>>> don't see anything in the descriptive text in this document that
> >>>> makes clear why you need both categories and how an implementation
> >>>> would decide which range to select a code point from.
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> You are right I've been struggling with these two type of code
> >>> points also, but came to a slightly different conclusion than you did.
> >>>
> >>> RFC 8126 says:
> >>>
> >>> 4.1.  Private Use
> >>>
> >>>      Private Use is for private or local use only, with the type and
> >>>      purpose defined by the local site.  No attempt is made to prevent
> >>>      multiple sites from using the same value in different (and
> >>>      incompatible) ways.  IANA does not record assignments from
> registries
> >>>      or ranges with this policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA
> >>>      to review them) and assignments are not generally useful for
> broad
> >>>      interoperability.  It is the responsibility of the sites making use
> >>>      of the Private Use range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within
> >>>      the intended scope of use).
> >>>
> >>>      Examples:
> >>>
> >>>         Site-specific options in DHCP [RFC2939]
> >>>         Fibre Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044]
> >>>         TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 224-255 [RFC5246]
> >>>
> >>> 4.2.  Experimental Use
> >>>
> >>>      Experimental Use is similar to Private Use, but with the purpose
> >>>      being to facilitate experimentation.  See [RFC3692] for details.
> >>>      IANA does not record assignments from registries or ranges with
> this
> >>>      policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA to review them)
> and
> >>>      assignments are not generally useful for broad interoperability.
> >>>      Unless the registry explicitly allows it, it is not appropriate for
> >>>      documents to select explicit values from registries or ranges with
> >>>      this policy.  Specific experiments will select a value to use during
> >>>      the experiment.
> >>>
> >>>      When code points are set aside for Experimental Use, it's
> important
> >>>      to make clear any expected restrictions on experimental scope.
> For
> >>>      example, say whether it's acceptable to run experiments using
> those
> >>>      code points over the open Internet or whether such experiments
> should
> >>>      be confined to more closed environments.  See [RFC6994] for an
> >>>      example of such considerations.
> >>>
> >>>      Example:
> >>>
> >>>         Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and
> TCP
> >>>         Headers [RFC4727]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It seems to me that "Private Use" are intended for private networks,
> >>> where care is taken that the code points are not leaked into the
> >>> Internet, but there the network itself is a production network, that
> >>> will be run for an unforeseeable amount of time. And that
> >>> "Experimental Use" code points are for short lived experiments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is different.
> >>>
> >>> I'm very uncertain whether it is sufficiently different to motivate
> >>> two different types. If the working group thinks there should be
> >>> only one code point, I would argue to keep the code points for
> >>> "Experimental Use". If we converge on "one type of code point only,
> >>> I think this has a wider impact than this document, and we should
> >>> probably update RFC
> >>> 8126 (again).
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to invite comments on this on the mpls wg list.
> >>>
> >>> /Loa
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> >>> Senior MPLS Expert
> >>> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> > Senior MPLS Expert
> > Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64