Re: [mpls] [tsvwg] on UDP encapsulation
<lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> Sun, 22 November 2015 11:23 UTC
Return-Path: <lloyd.wood@yahoo.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 5FC7E1B3240 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 03:23:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 JTqaL40U5jgH for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 03:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm42-vm8.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm42-vm8.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.120.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A96AA1B323E for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 03:23:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1448191416; bh=W6EhGzz2p5W3QH9lbGXnmul8VAoarnpMqzwRx0XMOs8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=dKkXVVrqhIrV26tQb4PvHW3yOvhxBl16y/iHmkwqDSuBQbfTsMbAx/WfXYWw/aLhcsnLDi2MX6uWP1DqzBgyrJ8z3T2MxB/0Kk3fS+P5C5Uqy4sJjQJV+TX7j674nsXB1EOMu9LVqg9Z0hEuIpFdbBvcw8roUj2S/581LTzO9P1KHRenZpVYk5BBN0x2Rg3QVdoQqzhjZhxo0wM/n7UW5dRjqx9Ws20Wimf0RbJ3IGjmlVTF+GSZiI9kLcOPiJYhEr2A2c/t89pcrGZLMvj5V/zAiNOVGRR5dyNDnGQhUXIVlq1W7Qw4eoWyoSlaFCQ5f5TmZUaEtHjlCeHgLjWUtg==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by nm42.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2015 11:23:36 -0000
Received: from [98.138.100.118] by nm42.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2015 11:20:39 -0000
Received: from [212.82.98.124] by tm109.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2015 11:20:38 -0000
Received: from [212.82.98.71] by tm17.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2015 11:20:38 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1008.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2015 11:20:38 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 732725.82976.bm@omp1008.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: iojjw3UVM1mjss2m3ugSPXZ2Fv4kP7hw9Vlt0nprHqLB05EUCRLsZc5lTIl2Ai0 2X.sei.ZnmKUvUHNz4NGXZLQ0aaMFsow0E.hEPw.sMh4eLKeM.WDSWCl4ZV92tlaY_Rs84dagLlZ XM1b15xXaFxvZIUz2mDWbg2JTJ.cpgdw6iWNHIjX8ZiPnzlKqi6FIfSauYnUpn5azZK81dytirSV UbYBICH.A.GI_J5AFGuaJbZtg9kZuZ48FzRpQ2hanxyAFMNoVzEThtKOQ4RYUImrtm2UplBHeJel DERoy.aHvIEkkHQLhIbcDnyjM199vMxjDSSJbxwvdsx9GNDlP4ERio8J6RhY2F_953yGraKiKrlD WR6KWHocZFE5eylM8cRKbw_578iIEtmRAGHfqXsKFode4K1Qqk.oUg3jlogGXDVm17eeXlt_LZ5R ZmHNCS20PcQ.wRniq7HF5zO.9nfS1I4xyexmYx1uHfoLF9UQKR_SZPusMLLcGxeB5eU1PqRvjheJ 0UlxkPmiSpUpV0Fb9864-
Received: by 212.82.98.116; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:20:38 +0000
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:20:37 +0000
From: lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Gorry Fairhust <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Lars Eggert <lars@netapp.com>
Message-ID: <1078701283.13763942.1448191237743.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493621ED33A6@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493621ED33A6@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_13763941_1281877583.1448191237743"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/FRRthXT8_uqtEaiqy2RouuRehUc>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [tsvwg] on UDP encapsulation
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lloyd.wood@yahoo.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: <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: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:23:40 -0000
David, good idea. My suggested changes to RFC5405bis's UDP-Lite section, touching on processing overheads, Lite as a preferable alternative to zero checksums etc., are attached. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk http://about.me/lloydwood On Monday, 16 November 2015, 11:53, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> wrote: Lloyd, > > I finally noticed that RFC7510, on MPLS in UDP encap, has > > been published. Do take a look at all of section 3, which > > laboriously goes through the nuances of when to choose > > between UDP checksums, for safety, and turning them off, > > for speed, at slight risk. That section and the RFCs it > > refers to are quite the complex read. And that's just on > > UDP checksums and whether to choose to turn them off. (It > > gives dull security documents a run for their money.) To complete the picture, UDP checksums come up again in the final paragraph of the security considerations section ;-). With respect to UDP-Lite, Tom described the primary consideration for MPLS/UDP: > Also, one of primary reasons for UDP encapsulation (e.g. MPLS/UDP, > GRE/UDP) is to get ECMP in the network for non-TCP, non-UDP protocols. That consideration ruled out UDP-Lite for the specific MPLS/UDP encap. However, a discussion of the applicability and merits of UDP-Lite for this sort of encap would be germane to the UDP Usage Guidelines draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/ Could I ask you to take a look at that draft? TSVWG plans to send it to the IESG in the near future. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 1:06 PM > To: lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk > Cc: mpls@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [tsvwg] on UDP encapsulation > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:10 PM, <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7510 > > > > I finally noticed that RFC7510, on MPLS in UDP encap, has > > been published. Do take a look at all of section 3, which > > laboriously goes through the nuances of when to choose > > between UDP checksums, for safety, and turning them off, > > for speed, at slight risk. That section and the RFCs it > > refers to are quite the complex read. And that's just on > > UDP checksums and whether to choose to turn them off. (It > > gives dull security documents a run for their money.) > > > > What's odd is that this is standards track, and the third > > option, use standards-track UDP-Lite to provide checksum > > protection of the UDP/IP pseudoheader to avoid zero-checksum > > port pollution on the host (on IPv4) or anywhere pollution > > (IPv6) is not mentioned as an alternative - particularly as > > UDP-Lite's partial payload coverage can cover the MPLS stack > > s well. > > > > In some cases the Lite checksum is just a precomputed value > > across a generated header that doesn't change, at no encode > > cost and little decode cost, and within corporate private > > networks the barriers to running UDP-Lite are less. > > > > It's unfortunate that UDP-Lite is the ideal approach for > > this, yet doesn't deserve consideration. Going back further > > in time, one might argue it's unfortunate that UDP-Lite was > > pushed to a separate protocol number, dooming it to oblivion. > > And, further back, that it was unfortunate that designers of > > IPv6 thought leaving the pseudo-header demux check up to > > separate transports that could then skip it, while insisting > > UDP always have its checksum on, which was always going > > to be relaxed, was a good idea for consistent error-detecting > > demux... > > > > Lloyd, the potential for UDP-Lite is mentioned in Encapsulation > Considerations draft (draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-00): > > "Conceptually, the ideal solution to this problem is a checksum that > covers only the newly added headers of interest. There is little > value in the portion of the UDP checksum that covers the encapsulated > packet because that would generally be protected by other checksums > and this is the expensive portion to compute. In fact, this solution > already exists in the form of UDP-Lite and UDP based encapsulations > could be easily ported to run on top of it. Unfortunately, the main > value in using UDP as part of the encapsulation header is that it is > recognized by already deployed equipment for the purposes of ECMP, > RSS, and middlebox operations. As UDP-Lite uses a different protocol > number than UDP and it is not widely implemented in middleboxes, this > value is lost. A possible solution is to incorporate the same > partial-checksum concept as UDP-Lite or other header checksum > protection into the encapsulation header and continue using UDP as > the outer protocol. One potential challenge with this approach is > the use of NAT or other form of translation on the outer header will > result in an invalid checksum as the translator will not know to > update the encapsulation header." > > IMO, the allowance that nodes may send a zero UDP checksum is a > concession being made for devices that are unable to perform the > computation. These are precisely devices in the network that before > the advent of UDP tunneling never had any reason to source UDP > packets. At end hosts we've had checksum offload capabilities in NICs > for years, so there is no reason a host should send zero UDP checksums > for IPv6 (except if it knows that the receiver is an aforementioned > device that can't do the checksum calculation). > > Also, one of primary reasons for UDP encapsulation (e.g. MPLS/UDP, > GRE/UDP) is to get ECMP in the network for non-TCP, non-UDP protocols. > For IPv6 we can use the flow label to provide for this in lieu of > devices parsing the transport layer (RFC6438). We do need switch > support for this and there does seem to be good progress on this. So > the use of the flow label for ECMP should obviate the motivation to > use UDP encapsulation in the first place (for many use cases). > > Tom
- [mpls] Fw: on UDP encapsulation lloyd.wood
- Re: [mpls] [tsvwg] on UDP encapsulation Tom Herbert
- Re: [mpls] [tsvwg] on UDP encapsulation Black, David
- Re: [mpls] [tsvwg] on UDP encapsulation lloyd.wood