Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-07
"lizho.jin@gmail.com" <lizho.jin@gmail.com> Mon, 23 March 2015 15:48 UTC
Return-Path: <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
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 7AEA21A8AC6 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 tccbY0cFRU-F for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C68201A89B3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbqf9 with SMTP id qf9so42113137igb.1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:references:mime-version:message-id :content-type; bh=vZ/mp4mWP+J5cpiz85jXspy54oPEnzWYhA7qoD60fn0=; b=eshjfE6LF0IEBjgKnx9G+opawER0aS+pwRUAJ1HMeA6a/TzmUVagXAWn0BwLJoK8ZS 9ZmvSkS+3wFZceMSICVFgM4B3qf6MOnDP2LQTgzSXYw35UJZ+dknQqMU3qP/zHNb5xL2 HRdio3DIHXXBS45TFHmjZ7cfaTtOv84C9iriGm3ZZAYmq/8GCi0Sq0A8NvulJFNGqpeW 2i7mvfsPTyWsx3VDtrooOd8nBmvtKksdrkQkuw1RLSSB2J1tI2OPcERdHXRDgX82IKpl J+sH/pQHA41W5QYoUwVGKT3mkWLI3ZmtSu2l/UdDAOODoAYtm+f+rtAByDlcBnmHRvi7 xjsw==
X-Received: by 10.107.137.25 with SMTP id l25mr134263330iod.23.1427125709188; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Lizhong ([118.132.235.91]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm6663305ign.12.2015.03.23.08.47.45 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:48:11 +0800
From: "lizho.jin@gmail.com" <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
To: Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@tools.ietf.org>
References: <000001d06429$a7dc6520$f7952f60$@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 3A5AAF28-4A17-472B-8AA8-A72F370E295F
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 5, 140[en]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2015032323480587170245@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart132024235264_=----"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/xwwjgQhsUvRoXQEnrpmUzsUFjK0>
Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-07
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:48:34 -0000
Hi Nobo, Thank you for the detail review again. See the reply inline below. to authors, Please also check, thanks. Regards Lizhong From: Nobo Akiya Date: 2015-03-22 06:52 To: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@tools.ietf.org CC: mpls@ietf.org; 'Loa Andersson' Subject: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-07 Hi Authors, I was asked to provide a review of the following document: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-07 The document is well written and addresses a real problem. I do have a number of (mostly minor and some moderate) comments which I'd like to see addressed before progressing the document. Section 2 -------------- Figure 1 demonstrates a case where one LSP is set up between PE1 and PE2. If PE1's IP address is not distributed to AS2, a traceroute from PE1 directed to PE2 could fail if the fault exists somewhere between ASBR2 and PE2. Above is not entirely accurate. The Traceroute from PE1 to PE2 can fail even if there is no fault. It would be good to clarify this by saying "If PE1's IP address is not distributed to AS2, a traceroute from PE1 directed towards PE2 can result in a failure because an LSR in AS2 may not be able to send the Echo Reply message". [Lizhong] accepted. Note that throughout the document, routable address means that it is possible to route an IP packet to this address using the normal information exchanged by the IGP operating in the AS Missing '.' (period) at the end of the paragraph. [Lizhong] accepted. When tracing an LSP from one AN to the remote AN, the LSR1/LSR2 node could not make a response to the Echo Request either, like the P2 node in the inter-AS scenario in Figure 1. "... could not make a response to the Echo Request either ..." can perhaps be rephrased as "... cannot send the Echo Reply either ...", to be a bit more clear. Yeah it's really a nitpick, but _making_ the response packet and _sending_ the response packet are two different operations in a code. [Lizhong] accepted. Figure 3 -------------- Typically, the numbers at the top (i.e., bit positions 0, 1, 2, ...) are aligned with columns with '-' character instead of '+' character. In other words, let's shift the bit positions to the right by one space. [Lizhong] good catch, thanks. Section 3.3 -------------- s/the Reply/the Echo Reply/ [Lizhong] accepted. Section 4.1 -------------- When the Echo Request is first sent by the initiator included a Relay Node Address Stack TLV, the TLV MUST contain the initiator address as the only entry of the stack of relayed addresses, I'd like to suggest rephrasing the first half of above sentence as follows. When the initiator sends the first Echo Request for the Traceroute operation, with a Relay Node Address Stack TLV, the TLV MUST contain ... [Lizhong] I'd like to remove "Traceroute" as below. Because in "Ping" mode, the Relayed Echo Reply mechanism could still work. When the initiator sends the first Echo Request with a Relay Node Address Stack TLV, the TLV MUST contain ... Section 4.2 -------------- Those address entries with K bit set to 1 MUST be kept in the stack. The receiver MUST check the addresses of the stack in sequence from bottom to top to find the last address in the stack with the K bit set (or the top of the stack if no K bit was found). Shouldn't above "find the last address in the stack with the K bit set" instead say "find the last non-Null address in the stack with the K bit set"? Otherwise the procedure will cause relay LSRs to always refer to this Null address with K bit set, preventing the first initiator address to be ever reached when searching for the next relay address. On a related topic, what is the purpose of allowing a Null address entry with K bit set? [Lizhong]: please refer to the following in section 4.2. If a node spans two addressing domains (with respect to this message) where nodes on either side may not be able to nodes in the other domain, then the final address added MUST set the K bit. K bit applies in the case of a NULL address, to serve as a warning to the initiator that further Echo Request messages may not result in receiving Echo Reply messages. But I believe we need to update section 4.6 as below: OLD: Each time the TTL is increased, the initiator MUST copy the Relay Node Address Stack TLV received in the previous Echo Reply to the next Echo Request. NEW: Each time the TTL is increased, the initiator could copy the Relay Node Address Stack TLV in the previous Echo Reply to the next Echo Request. Some modifications could also be made to the stack TLV, e.g., delete the NIL entry. If a node spans two addressing domains (with respect to this message) where nodes on either side may not be able to nodes in the other domain, s/may not be able to nodes/may not be able to reach nodes/ [Lizhong] accepted If a node spans two addressing domains (with respect to this message) where nodes on either side may not be able to nodes in the other domain, then the final address added MUST set the K bit. Above procedures defines a strict operation (i.e., MUST) for the K bit usage. However, how an LSR determines "If a node spans two addressing domains where nodes on either side may not be ..." is very vague. It might be possible that we can end up with different implementations of the K bit setting because of this vagueness. What's your thoughts? [Lizhong] this is the principle of the implementation. How to know the address information is implementation specific. If fail to get the information, then it is possible to fail for the echo reply. Maybe "SHOULD" is better here. If the full reply message would exceed the MTU size, the Relay Node Address Stack TLV MUST be returned back in the Echo Reply message. Some other TLV(s) MUST be dropped. Well, it's possible that the Relay Node Address Stack TLV has grown so big and that is the only optional TLV to be included in the Echo Reply. In that case, the Relay Node Address Stack TLV cannot be included despite the "MUST". I believe what you are trying to imply here is that the Relay Node Address Stack TLV takes precedence over other optional TLVs, when determining which optional TLVs to keep in the Echo Reply. In that case, perhaps it is better to say "If the full reply message would exceed the MTU size, the Relay Node Address Stack TLV SHOULD be included in the Echo Reply message (i.e., other optional TLVs are excluded)." [Lizhong] agreed. Section 4.3 -------------- The Destination Address determined in section 4.2 is used as the next relay node address. Section 4.2 only describes how to update the Relay Node Address Stack TLV. It also specifies how to update the Destination Address Pointer field. However, nowhere in section 4.2 talk about how the Destination Address is determined. I'm assuming "the Destination Address determined ..." is referring to this address which the Destination Address Pointer is pointing to. Perhaps it'll be a good idea, somewhere in section 4.2, to say "... _this_ address is determined to be the Destination Address". [Lizhong] good catch. See changes below: OLD in section 4.2: The Destination Address Pointer MUST be set to this entry. NEW The Destination Address Pointer MUST be set to this entry which is also the Destination Address. Section 4.4 -------------- Upon receiving an Relayed Echo Reply message with its own address as the destination address in the IP header, the relay node MUST determine the next relay node address as described in section 4.3, with the modification that the location of the received Destination Address is used instead of the bottom of stack in the algorithm. In above, I think you meant section 4.2 instead of section 4.3. [Lizhong] accepted The destination address in Relay Node Address Stack TLV will be updated with the next relay node address. By "destination address" above, do you mean the Destination Address Pointer field? If so, a bit of clarification is required. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean by "destination address" above. [Lizhong] yes, changed as below: The Destination Address Pointer in Relay Node Address Stack TLV will be set to the next relay node address. The document is not very clear on how these two fields are used. - Source IP address field of the IP header - Source Address of Replying Router field of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV I'd imagine you'd want one field to be set by the egress LSR and unmodified by every upstream relay LSRs, and one field to be updated by the egress LSR and every upstream relay LSR. This is sort of clarified in section 4.7, but really should be part of the procedures. [Lizhong] in section 4.2, it says as below: Upon receiving a Relay Node Address Stack TLV in an Echo Request message, the receiver updates the "Source Address of Replying Router". The address MUST be same as the source IP address of Relay Echo Reply (section 4.3) or Echo Reply message (section 4.5) being sent. How to set Source IP address field of the IP header is a standard behavior, and not speicified in this document. Section 4.6 -------------- During a traceroute operation, multiple Echo Request messages are sent. Each time the TTL is increased, the initiator MUST copy the Relay Node Address Stack TLV received in the previous Echo Reply to the next Echo Request. True but don't we want the initiator to "reset" some fields such as Reply Add Type, Source Address of Replying Router and Destination Address Pointer? [Lizhong] these fields will be reset by the reply node. But this section should still be updated as described in previous comments. Section 6 -------------- As an added security, a receiver of an MPLS Echo Request should verify that the first address in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is the same address as the source IP address field of the received IP header. [Lizhong] accepted, thanks. Thanks! -Nobo
- [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-r… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-rel… lizho.jin@gmail.com
- Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-rel… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-rel… lizho.jin@gmail.com
- Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-rel… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-rel… lizho.jin@gmail.com