[netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port
"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 18 October 2024 04:47 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 9C344C15155C; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:47:26 -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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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_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=strayalpha.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 fXAk6PpC4OWq; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CD6DC180B73; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=AmjXQfGAO42ojJhDEQPvMjY5vsDn//ImbSibfm4n3Yw=; b=bzUSi1CPsYVCvMXCn4O0FVLDxU cZxYlNlU2hy10/nKt4BwkJkUA9nVCpvJEahbEPOt3urAUXAe7gWE2vonUDylDyYqtEMFKhP98Mrc7 d2prAc6aXuMcx+VdINrhtFNVfvkPa5WyjTmvNnDvlW4IgCqlrQeODhqD7IlitldW+ufqxUxCQZSBn Ldjjn0/4CObxr46LxtN4sFxNaZAf/Lx4cpoJfkdfR4bUnV/0IcAbFZ4lEw7Mm6zA2/RaQRlwMr6pG iZhG97SOfppH+7dr2ButYVhqsJueGlZf7Q/82+Qdsc01MXfcDqKp11BmJQPPE8IyLHA+oNAxzLccy FiqQ+/1w==;
Received: from [172.58.209.1] (port=4625 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1t1etT-006vsR-2Q; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:47:19 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_684FFD97-95BF-4FEA-9AB7-5E00444ABCA7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3818.100.11.1.3\))
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <2EBB4D35-4D0A-4123-AE45-0D0C6B549E48@insa-lyon.fr>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:47:06 -0700
Message-Id: <EAEFE72C-2E72-4847-B612-E76617A1C5CC@strayalpha.com>
References: <2EBB4D35-4D0A-4123-AE45-0D0C6B549E48@insa-lyon.fr>
To: Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3818.100.11.1.3)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Message-ID-Hash: NRD7RARW4VI5V6Z2IH4IUL3MKH4A34V6
X-Message-ID-Hash: NRD7RARW4VI5V6Z2IH4IUL3MKH4A34V6
X-MailFrom: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: tsv-art@ietf.org, Pierre Francois <pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>, "Thomas. Graf" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/_Cfxl6IEzUj1qIXCiAs8-96-KuM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>
Before getting to the question of whether a port assignment is warranted, can someone please explain why this protocol should be allowed in the first place? The document gives a confusing argument for this new service in addition to the current variety of Netconf protocols and its use of UDP - “high velocity”. - IP packets travel at the same *velocity* in a network, because velocity is defined (in physics) as a vector that combines speed and direction. - If “velocity” is intended to imply latency, again, UDP does not reduce message latency compared to TCP. Packets not lost travel with the same latency; UDP packets that are lost are never delivered, so the fact that TCP increases latency for retransmissions is not relevant. -If “velocity” is intended to mean rate, UDP outperforms TCP only for extremely high rates (near Gbps and higher), far in excess of those permitted for UDP streams that lack congestion feedback, per RFC8085. The document makes vague assertions about the need to use UDP due to TCP state, but this would affect only the collection node, not the individual reporting nodes. Additionally, avoiding TCP state doesn’t seem to significantly impact endpoint association state if DTLS is used - as in “unsecured networks”, which are basically nearly every network anyway. The document makes vague assertion about hardware, but even very simple hardware is capable of implementing TCP, and certainly any hardware capable of implementing DTLS would probably be more than capable of supporting TCP as well. So I don’t yet see the need for this variant - and even if there were, the very motivation (high performance flows in excess of TCP) is the reason why it cannot be safely deployed (per RFC8085). It isn’t until all this is fixed that it would be useful to discuss whether a port is needed, but to cut that debate short, note hat the reporting happens AFTER subscriptions indicate an IP address and port number. As per RFC7605, this means that an assigned port is not needed, as the collector can run on a dynamic port selected at runtime and reported during the subscription step.. Joe — Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com > On Oct 17, 2024, at 9:46 AM, Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr> wrote: > > Dear Transport Area, > > The NETCONF WG suggested to contact designated experts for the default UDP port assignment. > > The question is whether UDP-notif (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif/) need to define a default port or not. > The draft had an early review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-11-tsvart-early-tuexen-2023-11-15/ where the default port was not raised. > > The current understanding is that: > - Reading https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7605#section-7.1 UDP-notif can be configured in both endpoints, and anyway the configuration of the IP address is needed before sending messages. > - Reading https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6335#section-7.2, given that port allocations are limited ressources, these assignments should be avoided when possible. > - From discussions on the ML (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9x_w3aI70Cw1oNJP4JH8h181cbI/) so far, current network telemetry protocols do not require a default port. > > So, from these references UDP-notif does not have the requirements for a default port. Is this correct? > > Regards, > Alex > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list -- tsv-art@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tsv-art-leave@ietf.org
- [netconf] UDP default port Alex Huang Feng
- [netconf] Re: UDP default port Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port touch@strayalpha.com
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port touch@strayalpha.com
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Alex Huang Feng
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port touch@strayalpha.com
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Benoit Claise
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Benoit Claise
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Carsten Bormann
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Carsten Bormann
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Benoit Claise
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port touch@strayalpha.com