Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-06
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sun, 25 February 2024 02:24 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 E60AEC14F5F5; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:24:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JVmbREBs2fwu; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97A08C14F61F; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:24:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dc6dcd9124bso2096180276.1; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:24:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708827879; x=1709432679; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Kft318WYZuWOlr6zRZVfyZ68ZKIBpSk45eoN3oTrhlc=; b=JqYY/cGN8Al9226zkhotsE/05s36hWcI5xGzWeiPaag5fjk6UoQX3w5Q1DLAdjmjJ7 CDTdpnFhZdeqC1yUzM0TLrrRzVppw76EdUkxcm1HumhNdhAtwP8HLb2F9cm7/EfWSX3f RSc7PxImHycHdc//q7wR6w26N0LhjmJbUXuaJv74F3ByBh5gljR/kUh8ugYBQhmLX+54 mYVI8S0dUEOhP9gc/bb/thpUJAfv+5qOxQlIOA6I9dCd53TQikG/Ervwb5YcUnLzv2CB eay4STZiISJSVQTFLi3t+rjjiX2GGJIlLiS7KJZGMxo68Atw8R5Scvlq97Fh+Pf+F5Fw K5fQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708827879; x=1709432679; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Kft318WYZuWOlr6zRZVfyZ68ZKIBpSk45eoN3oTrhlc=; b=npGdBt4xvgUa/KMzYMzh5KVo8+5YvhWkMa+MmSqMxXyy+GFf8Gn6Fh0as3bBZ7JuC0 hdwkHb+X/tQbTO7e37o5T2/+DiHwxl4Ond9d7dG231QiAvpNSbgyROlX8M12TTppgr8Z jJO0U6FNe138SH4p5UNneXJeAKFmCqXtKrNYdZzlczT/OfTTpiHX4EyNMCAqjIjl8VAc 0b3X5onyFoenvplZ530PqLVcCWt/WrY5OXKeL3YvBVs93FKc9CL5EcZ59CEM7q0LhKaG UEKACTmXAR/nLAdQyhIYvi5/T28uAAzzQ8vvNoPTkFztw11SJo4QZkfb0b/Yiq7HABYW hD/g==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUfDKH78xN4MFbAjO3iStJ4bO306Wg5oDme2meE7VSU0/aD82OhU+YfIdBRi9iH9+8WJ5QMljrdn3WSoYZnfqyGcTrQmIX3dVOwH4gCZ+EUKBR3VwwD16n3cVD1dUXbJwbJUmGhqmJMX02V2jhiHUEMma0NqaH7orw=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzqPM7XqRW8Oxmrg8b/k/NfCQJ3SDRwPGP+WNBe8XqQGXzkzJke RigJTAVbJHcmpUTkLa9t8AtdpPgJKQcPbtgadq6sfbOajDOv0AtUiRtRht2bNPPqh0xtzSr88Ym tHHtjpxVOAkYRYp3LmMe/+eMc86RvkmxY9Qs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG9uE4s7yUQw5xuTshHaa3O6UUVdQpQFCwMMNg1TNsZW4xVSlBevsFn3S414AeM9i9ChVmsXCBcIeKH2Y25drk=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:e905:0:b0:dc6:b8f5:50ae with SMTP id n5-20020a25e905000000b00dc6b8f550aemr2227554ybd.32.1708827878649; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:24:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <170864700898.14065.4946299905740369098@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmXitJr-57P3y_=pYEqwoHeMo4HKqPKOud-ZZ2dQQb_gGQ@mail.gmail.com> <176e1397-5b01-487f-8ae0-078bfe2f8ee7@joelhalpern.com> <CA+RyBmUMit0oc1MZTnQ0apTM8Wj_ra7Tna5JCwwMbtbKOfgyCQ@mail.gmail.com> <ca4d0846-9ac9-4846-8bf6-f2e68787c9c8@joelhalpern.com> <CA+RyBmWUgge9E28Y_CCF1_EQB1YzchWXzDK9P4qYxozmR7KFyw@mail.gmail.com> <52902652-167a-414f-8ca6-c13c80504829@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <52902652-167a-414f-8ca6-c13c80504829@joelhalpern.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:24:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmU+vzeW8YOmyf1xsUcGfPPBVCnLgFELcj26D8JNR0N_2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0759506122b7ed9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/VocdJttiEYxNtJF85mrcRYl3OVA>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-06
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 02:24:58 -0000
Now I see where the disconnect was, thank you for pointing it out to me. As I understand it, the notifications from leaves to the root will not use DetNet resources and, as a result, would not congest DetNet flows although may have negative effect on other flows. I've updated text as follows: NEW TEXT: As described above, an ingress LSR that has received the BFD Control packet sends the unicast IP/UDP encapsulated BFD Control packet with the Final (F) bit set to the egress LSR. In some scenarios, e.g., when a p2mp LSP is broken close to its root, and the number of egress LSRs is significantly large, the root might receive a large number of notifications. The notifications from leaves to the root will not use DetNet resources and, as a result, will not congest DetNet flows, although they may negatively affect other flows. However, the control plane of the ingress LSR might be congested by the BFD Control packets transmitted by egress LSRs and the process of generating unicast BFD Control packets, as noted above. To mitigate that, a BFD implementation that supports this specification is RECOMMENDED to use a rate limiter of received BFD Control packets passed to the ingress LSR’s control plane for processing. What are your thoughts? Regards, Greg On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 5:56 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > Mostly. THere is one other aspect. You may consider it irrelevant, in > which case we can simply say so. Can the inbound notifications coming from > a large number of leaves at the same time cause data plane congestion? > > Yours, > > Joel > On 2/24/2024 8:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Joel, > thank you for your quick response. I consider two risks that may stress > the root's control plane: > > - notifications transmitted by the leaves reporting the failure of the > p2mp LSP > - notifications transmitted by the root to every leave closing the > Poll sequence > > As I understand it, you refer to the former as inbound congestion. The > latter - outbound. Is that correct? I agree that even the inbound stream of > notifications may overload the root's control plane. And the outbound > process further increases the probability of the congestion in the control > plane. My proposal is to apply a rate limiter to control inbound flow of > BFD Control messages punted to the control plane. > What would you suggest in addition to the proposed text? > > Best regards, > Greg > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 3:28 PM Joel Halpern <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> > wrote: > >> What you say makes sense. I think we need to acknowledge the inbound >> congestion risk, even if we choose not to try to ameliorate it. Your >> approaches seems to address the outbound congestion risk from the root. >> >> YOurs, >> >> Joel >> On 2/24/2024 6:25 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: >> >> Hi Joel, >> thank you for the clarification. My idea is to use a rate limiter at the >> root of the p2mp LSP that may receive notifications from the leaves >> affected by the failure. I imagine that the threshold of the rate limiter >> might be exceeded and the notifications will be discarded. As a result, >> some notifications will be processed by the headend of the p2mp BFD session >> later, as the tails transmit notifications periodically until the receive >> the BFD Control message with the Final flag set. Thus, we cannot avoid the >> congestion but mitigate the negative effect it might cause by extending the >> convergence. Does that make sense? >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 2:39 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: >> >>> That covers part of my concern. But.... A failure near the root means >>> that a lot of leaves will see failure, and they will all send notifications >>> converging on the root. Those notifications themselves, not just the final >>> messages, seem able to cause congestion. I am not sure what can be done >>> about it, but we aren't allowed to ignore it. >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Joel >>> On 2/24/2024 3:34 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: >>> >>> Hi Joel, >>> thank you for your support of this work and the suggestion. Would the >>> following update of the last paragraph of Section 5 help: >>> OLD TEXT: >>> An ingress LSR that has received the BFD Control packet, as described >>> above, sends the unicast IP/UDP encapsulated BFD Control packet with >>> the Final (F) bit set to the egress LSR. >>> NEW TEXT: >>> As described above, an ingress LSR that has received the BFD Control >>> packet sends the unicast IP/UDP encapsulated BFD Control packet with >>> the Final (F) bit set to the egress LSR. In some scenarios, e.g., >>> when a p2mp LSP is broken close to its root, and the number of egress >>> LSRs is significantly large, the control plane of the ingress LSR >>> might be congested by the BFD Control packets transmitted by egress >>> LSRs and the process of generating unicast BFD Control packets, as >>> noted above. To mitigate that, a BFD implementation that supports >>> this specification is RECOMMENDED to use a rate limiter of received >>> BFD Control packets passed to processing in the control plane of the >>> ingress LSR. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Greg >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:10 PM Joel Halpern via Datatracker < >>> noreply@ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>>> Review result: Ready >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this >>>> draft. The >>>> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related >>>> drafts as >>>> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on >>>> special >>>> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the >>>> Routing ADs. >>>> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see >>>> https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir >>>> >>>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, >>>> it would >>>> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last >>>> Call >>>> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through >>>> discussion or by >>>> updating the draft. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-name-version >>>> Reviewer: your-name >>>> Review Date: date >>>> IETF LC End Date: date-if-known >>>> Intended Status: copy-from-I-D >>>> >>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. >>>> I do have one question that I would appreciate being considered. >>>> >>>> Comments: >>>> The document is clear and readable, with careful references for >>>> those >>>> needing additional details. >>>> >>>> Major Issues: None >>>> >>>> Minor Issues: >>>> I note that the security considerations (section 6) does refer to >>>> congestion issues caused by excessive transmission of BFD >>>> requests. I >>>> wonder if section 5 ("Operation of Multipoint BFD with Active Tail >>>> over >>>> P2MP MPLS LSP") should include a discussion of the congestion >>>> implications >>>> of multiple tails sending notifications at the rate of 1 per second >>>> to the >>>> head end, particularly if the failure is near the head end. While I >>>> suspect that the 1 / second rate is low enough for this to be safe, >>>> discussion in the document would be helpful. >>>> >>>> >>>>
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Loa Andersson
- [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls… Joel Halpern via Datatracker
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… bruno.decraene
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of d… loa
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of d… Joel Halpern
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call… loa
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… loa
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… bruno.decraene
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… loa
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… bruno.decraene
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… bruno.decraene
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… bruno.decraene
- Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… bruno.decraene