Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 28 December 2020 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 CA4A33A10E5; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 23:04:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 tiXwg9F_kWDB; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 23:03:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97FCA3A10E4; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 23:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [124.104.17.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB71C322D68; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 08:03:42 +0100 (CET)
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr@ietf.org
References: <CAA=duU21PHQoJP0cEX6o1K=EwUFqeH19YvcDPNJVKE9c2szS6w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <46b1b623-a628-2373-4378-e70f0038b4f2@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:03:38 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU21PHQoJP0cEX6o1K=EwUFqeH19YvcDPNJVKE9c2szS6w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/sn-q0yjr1LDV1uumR442dM76gJM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04
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: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 07:04:02 -0000

Working Group,

Andy and I have discussed this a bit off-line.

Andy,

I have now re-read the this  draft, other relevant drafts and the mail 
we have exchanged. I had earlier partly misunderstood and now think that 
your summary of the situation is basically correct.

However, I'd like to see more discussion on what we should do. In 
particular I'd like to see a comment from the authors on this.

You outline three different proposals:

1.  follow the draft and allocate 0x0010b from IP Version Numbers
     registry in the Version Numbers name space for this purpose
2.  use ACH
3.  use code point #15 from IP Version Numbers registry in the Version
    Numbers name space

To me it seems like 1 and 3 is the same, we ask for a code point from IP 
Version Numbers registry in the Version Numbers name space. IANA pick 
the code point for us.

Note 1: We can give a strong recommendation telling IANA which code 
point we want, but the decision is still with IANA.

Note 2: It seems like the chances that a Version number lower than 6 
will not be picked for an IP version, value 2 is unassigned and much 
easier to allocate than the reserved value 15.

Note 3: I think you are right that it is a hrd sell both to working 
group and the IESG to pick a value from this registry.

Authors.

It would be nice to hear from you on this discussion, but don't change 
the document until we have a reasonable consensus.

/Loa



On 25/12/2020 01:44, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> I've been asked to provide a pre-adoption MPLS-RT review of 
> draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04.
> 
> I have a major concern that I believe needs to be addressed, either 
> before or after WG adoption (I defer to the WG chairs to make this 
> decision). My personal preference is that it be addressed by the authors 
> prior to adoption, but if it occurs following adoption, I would like to 
> see it addressed before it gets much further in the WG process.
> 
> My concern is as follows:
> 
> In Section 6 and Figure 1, 0x0010b (2 decimal) is used for the first 
> nibble following the MPLS label stack in order to avoid ECMP. This 
> intent is fine, but there is an issue with choosing this particular 
> value. The first nibble following the label stack is often (as we know) 
> interpreted as an IP Version Number. According to 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml 
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml> 
> , 0x0010b (2 decimal) is currently unassigned, so it COULD be assigned 
> by IANA, creating a future conflict.
> 
> We could request IANA to assign IP Version number 2 for this purpose, 
> but I believe that would be a very difficult sell to both IANA and the 
> IESG, as there are only a small number of IP Version numbers available.
> 
> Instead, I would suggest either of the two following alternatives:
> 
> 1. Use the MPLS ACH (RFC 5586), starting with 0x0001b, and alter the 
> packet format in Figure 1 of this draft accordingly so that it follows 
> the ACH's general format but also includes the necessary fields for the 
> draft's purpose.
> 
> 2. Use one of the IANA reserved IP version numbers instead of 0x0010b. I 
> would recommend 15 (0x1111b). There is reasonable certainty that this 
> would never actually ever be assigned by IANA.
> 
> The first alternative is my personal preference, but I would be OK with 
> the second as well.
> 
> Other comments:
> 
> Other than this issue, I found the draft to be well-written and easy to 
> follow, and generally ready for WG adoption.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64