Re: [netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-10

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 09 August 2023 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE0BC151983 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=yumaworks.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 nrIr2_SuuH6Y for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x235.google.com (mail-lj1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) (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 3386CC15107B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x235.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2b9dc1bff38so900531fa.1 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Aug 2023 10:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks.com; s=google; t=1691601703; x=1692206503; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=D+A+zo01jd3f4WC+V6+RbLYXpxb4c+BezC9Woi9aCF8=; b=byVEeGQCx9trqx7ZcInhFTVKt5LZrwioTS17UGoWsT17ie8n0+Gq6sStAGJIdNsWXM iowURwsya8Yn8Q9AVzMN5Dgv0DIVtp54fUtaUyoxwZmyv9MMJuJLHU/NOFBGeBVlT2k8 9p6DzjwJ7/AN6do8wJDQjPZOlpcBpVreCtHdgkOXi2GM7Zc7jXGdSvLYbc4x/TzgdRJA lFhT3iuGG/J1bIXVamOcMd5prUl6fzpUk+//GSV/RoBGtidYvvoSx5wCnaEphikpkcUW uPpYeJiXTgGLcW2qOKTQNuu7kMqokBpUB9HIFx4CTy72RSkjiHw+CoWBbIB857V/L4Zy L38Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1691601703; x=1692206503; h=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=D+A+zo01jd3f4WC+V6+RbLYXpxb4c+BezC9Woi9aCF8=; b=Tlg/779LcpdUBI5pWuFpCb+AI/aCAPauIMTC3zejucblo91rV2kMWDcgfvXpWAGCdN oehKQsYRVffSZGIOY6mW2/DefRlTusUi1YMl4dq+Vxu6ktuRYYdBLSus+e6Ti4EH9xEJ Px+Va0tC8ZdPTRA71yZr9uQ+ukJyh3AAp6At16oxxqh2m7z+p0zdvC6EHAY2rYBgqIAN OMlXJDIbQMcS6jzElWJ35mJnEcBAEhukyVAdBGZHbC1GHPwsnkUMefu/4Eo+HoXb/jZW xNIpFyuk0Us8gd/qfAkCH1bYH2RhckcUFkjNti1ta6DNrr4K/JShKJ/06OW8G0frlycy 7j1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxQtmMCfvNgn1Sfg+qEM3ZWso9yodPp/I0PkvPSFZNssmk2AbMf vMV72Z0d4DHgmwwU2uqEARJ2gnb+s1rA0maKhbAnZg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFQG0U2WpHjTkKJ0Xg49Lm9WbsmdM7eR+iLAzRJT/77bNhJPofe5XSjwFvPNNYtdDJUn1fwcqcMU2qTgLUCUUI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:454:b0:2b9:f27f:e491 with SMTP id g20-20020a05651c045400b002b9f27fe491mr1968661ljg.42.1691601703133; Wed, 09 Aug 2023 10:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e2e898680f2b40a78b7d8854ca5fee4f@huawei.com> <wd6kzin4foik2dimypz67ziqya7lhbs3rzk7t4gp6jic77kxb3@6pvkir2sivsn> <04cb53fc90f84bf4b23acd598eefaf1c@huawei.com> <anhguehaskcbb2ayryota6fixkijydn2tjp2iggkrxqfottfxh@c5zwzaewitu6> <80d76006-a780-ddf0-74e9-7edc6b2063ce@huawei.com> <6f0be853231c4fa4b24de758590770f2@swisscom.com> <D3F2969C-C395-4403-995D-E064A943F3AB@insa-lyon.fr> <2xysgyiy4arqyemi52o7uog33uzwf2o6c6cgoik7tx57rcsmvk@jvlxk4njwlyx>
In-Reply-To: <2xysgyiy4arqyemi52o7uog33uzwf2o6c6cgoik7tx57rcsmvk@jvlxk4njwlyx>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 10:21:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHSb191+f5ocQ8ET0wPA6KEz7F=BR7awskn-SatcpmeUSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university>, Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>, netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009dff82060280b6f9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/26H1rPZJvQJerkJwyUitHjZhim8>
Subject: Re: [netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-10
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 17:21:49 -0000

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 12:41 AM Jürgen Schönwälder
<jschoenwaelder@constructor.university> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Alex Huang Feng wrote:
>
> > Something we realised during our tests is that in Linux, when the packet
> passes the MTU and it fragments at IP level, the performance drops greatly
> (in terms of throughput and amount of messages we can deal with).
>
>

Agreed.
We used to set the chunk size to 2000 many years ago.
Things worked better changing it to 1000.


The key section here is 4.1
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-10.html#name-segmentation-option

*Consequently, implementations of the mechanism SHOULD provide a
configurable max-segment-size option to control the maximum size of a
payload.*
Each segment is the same as a chunk in NETCONF or RESTCONF message framing.
A server would not actually use the maximum size of 65535 if the MTU is
1500.





> You more or less repeat the IPv4 fragmentation design above the UDP
> layer and it seems by doing so you inherit all its problems. It feels
> like you are moving the problems around rather than solving them (and
> if you go there you might end up with something that you do not want
> in your aim to be fully stateless).
>

I agree this is a concern.
The chunking feature of NETCONF or HTTP is easy to use over TCP where none
of this extra work is required.




> Perhaps you just wanted UDP and the rest just got added for political
> correctness in the IETF?
>


The solution is partial at best and designed for use in enterprise networks.
The introduction describes lots of line cards blasting UDP packets at a
single receiver.

Maybe it is unwise to have a standard that almost certainly generates
packet loss,
yet has zero tolerance for packet loss.



> /js
>


Andy


>
> --
> Jürgen Schönwälder              Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://constructor.university/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>