Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bruno,

Thanks for the updated draft - more in-line.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:59 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Alia,
>
> Many thanks for the useful review.
> -04 has just been published. I believe it address your first pass of
> comments.
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-
> encapsulation-cap-04
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-
> encapsulation-cap-04
>
>
>
> Main changes:
> - aligning with  I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps rather than RFC 5512.
> - adding 2 sub-TLV coming from I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps: IP QoS Field,
> UDP Destination Port. Note that the first one is currently called "IPv4 DS
> Field" in the IDR draft. I've commented on IDR that this is IPv4 specific
> with no IPv6 counterpart.


[Alia] The text for the UDP Destination Port (Sec 6.6) is wrong - it's just
copied from Sec 6.5.
I agree with you on the need for the IP QoS field to represent both IPv6 as
well as IPv4; it also just talks about the DS field - but that's 6 bits.
Are the ECN bits included?  That's a conversation for IDR.


> Waiting for the resolution. We need the BGP and IGP draft to be aligned.
> - removed registry "IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Type" and pointing to
> existing registry "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Type"
> - (editorial) Sub-TLV of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute are grouped in
> a dedicated section (§6)
> - clarification that for all but one, those sub-TLV are defined in
> I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps, from a syntax, semantic and usage standpoint.
> - color Sub-TLV better defined (as not aligned with the IDR draft)
> - added a section about the usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute
> (§7)
> - a significant rule added: " A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no
> route toward the IP address
>    specified in the Endpoint Sub-TLV or if the route is not advertised
>    by the router advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute
>    advertising this tunnel. "
>
>
> Some follow up on some of your points that I had missed in previous answer:
>
> > From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 12:56 AM
> [...]
> > (does variable length fields based upon the allocated type cause issues
> for OSPF sub-TLV parsing???)
>
> I guess that you are referring to
> "   o  Sub-TLV Length (1 or 2 octets): the total number of octets of the
>       sub-TLV value field.  The Sub-TLV Length field contains 1 octet if
>       the Sub-TLV Type field contains a value in the range from 1-127.
>       The Sub-TLV Length field contains two octets if the Sub-TLV Type
>       field contains a value in the range from 128-254."
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
> tunnel-encaps-06#section-2
>
> The IGP draft does not use this. It uses a fixed 1-octet length field:
>     " Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): Unsigned 8-bit integer indicating the
>       total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field."
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-
> encapsulation-cap-04#section-5


[Alia] I think that there is still clarification on what to do if (in the
future) a sub-TLV that
used the 2-octet length couldn't fit into a 1-octet length. I know this is
currently hypothetical,
so all I'm looking for is a statement about the difference and that such
sub-TLVs are not supported
without further extensions.



> > Semantics and behavior need to be specified - not just the encodings
>
> Agreed.
> Note however that the behavior is more complex in the BGP draft, because
> the Tunnel Attribute is attached to BGP routes, which can be of various
> SAFI with their own semantic and usage (e.g. GRT vs VPN/overlay case,
> labeled/unlabeled...) and their interaction with the different kind of
> tunnels (GRT vs VPN, labeled vs unlabeled). This is not the case in the IGP
> draft which only signals the tunnel itself (discovery, parameters).
>

[Alia] Sure - Sec 7 helps a lot.
What isn't clear though is how tunnels that require setup are handled.  In
Sec 5 of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06, I see
"The tunnel type is supported (i.e., router R knows how to set up tunnels
of that type, how to create the encapsulation header for tunnels of that
type, etc.)" as part of the discussion of what is a "feasible" tunnel.
Similar language would help in Sec 7.

[Alia] Finally, from a process perspective, I think that there has been
sufficient technical change that another short WGLC is appropriate.  Please
do update the draft first.  Then, we can do an IETF Last Call targeting an
IESG telechat in August.

Regards,
Alia



> Thanks again for the careful review and the useful comments.
>
> Regards,
> --Bruno
>
> > From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail]]  > Sent: Tuesday, June 20,
> 2017 5:27 PM
> >
>  > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  >
>  > > Hi Alia,
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Thanks a lot for your AD review. Please see our response inline.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > *发件人**:* Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
>  > > *发送时间**:* 2017年6月15日 6:56
>  > > *收件人**:* OSPF List; [e-mail]
>  > > *主题**:* AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-
>  > > encapsulation-cap-03.
>  > >
>  > > First, I would like to thank the authors - Xiaohu, Bruno, Robert,
> Luis,
>  > > and Luay - for their work on this useful document.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > I do have a few concerns that need addressing before the draft can
>  > > progress.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Bruno/Xiaohu] Many thanks for your useful comments.
>  > >
>  > > Following your comments, we believe it would be simpler and better to
> not
>  > > create a new IANA registry for ”IGP  Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
> Types”
>  > > but rather reuse the existing BGP one:
>  > >
>  > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/
>  > > bgp-parameters.xhtml#tunnel-types
>  > >
>  >
>  > Given that the sub-TLVs available depend on the tunnel type, I think
> this
>  > makes sense.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > > [Bruno/Xiaohu] BTW when this OSPF extension has been defined, it has
> been
>  > > modeled based on RFC 5512. However, as of today, the BGP extension is
> been
>  > > redefined in draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps, sometimes. Which normative
>  > > reference should be use?
>  > >
>  > > - as of today, RFC 5512 is probably the right one as
>  > > draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps has not passed WG LC and may never be
>  > > published as RFC (IDR requires 2 implementations. I think RFC 5512
> has not
>  > > been implemented hence we may question whether
> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
>  > > will be…)
>  > >
>  > > - in some hypothetical future, draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps may
> obsolete
>  > > RFC 5512
>  > >
>  >
>  > Judging from the two partial implementations in the IDR wiki, I'm not
> quite
>  > as concerned.  That said, are you certain that there aren't explanations
>  > and behaviors that are clarified in draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps that
>  > aren't in RFC 5512?  Certainly, some of the tunnel types that were
>  > mentioned in the OSPF registry are from the former.
>  >
>  >
>  > > Major:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > 1)  First, the draft talks about what information is sent - but
> nothing
>  > > about how it is to be understood or used.  That'd be ok if there were
> a
>  > > clear reference to a document that discussed the related procedures.
> A
>  > > quick scan of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 seems that it may be
> the
>  > > right place to start - but it's procedures are BGP-focused and while
> there
>  > > are many similarities, there may be interesting differences as well.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Bruno/Xiaohu] We’ll clarify that the 3 sub-TLV (§5.1-§5.3) are
>  > > normatively defined in RFC 5512, from a format, semantic and usage
>  > > standpoint. And that there code point are allocated in respectively
> the
>  > > following IANA registries: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel
> Types,
>  > > BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs. As per you comment, we
> need to
>  > > clarify the 5.4 color Sub-TLV. Proposed text:
>  > >
>  > > The Color Sub-TLV value is a 4-octet unsigned integer. Its semantic
> and
>  > > usage are the same as the Color Value, from the Color Sub-TLV defined
> in
>  > > RFC 5512 section 4.3 (*)
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > For instance, for the Color sub-TLV, is the 4 byte color value
> expected to
>  > > represent the same meaning in OSPF as in BGP?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Bruno/Xiaohu]Yes.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >   Can a BGP route with a particular color extended community then
> have the
>  > > OSPF tunnel to use selected from only those tunnels with the same
> color?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >   What does the Color TLV mean in a purely OSPF context?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Bruno/Xiaohu] idem as in the IDR context.  It’s a color used to
> define
>  > > policy. The application using those tunnels, may use this color as an
> input
>  > > for its policy when choosing the tunnel to use (or not use).
>  > >
>  > > We can add this text if needed.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > Yes, I think that is needed.  In BGP, since a route can have
> communities,
>  > it is easy to just have a "must match color" rule (though one could
> picture
>  > a community that means match-any-tunnel-but-this-color).  For OSPF, if
> the
>  > intention of the use for this information is an external application,
> that
>  > needs to be clearly stated.
>  >
>  > There needs to be enough text so that two implementations can actually
> use
>  > the functionality - not merely signal it - and that is generally what is
>  > missing in the document.
>  >
>  >    Sec 7 of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 ("However, suppose that
> one of
>  > > the TLVs in U2's Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains the Color
>  > > Sub-TLV.  In that case, packet P SHOULD
>  > >
>  > >    NOT be sent through the tunnel identified in that TLV, unless U1 is
>  > >    carrying the Color Extended Community that is identified in U2's
>  > >    Color Sub-TLV.") doesn't seem to strictly apply.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Bruno/Xiaohu] Would new clarification added above (*) be enough? If
> not,
>  > > a priori, I’d rather improve the definition of section 5.4 defining
> this
>  > > color sub-TLV, in order for it to generally apply to any text.
> (rather than
>  > > trying to patch the specific above text from Sec 7)
>  > >
>  >
>  > I would be happy for you to fix it where makes the most sense to you.
> My
>  > review suffers from the usual issue of commenting mostly on what is
> there
>  > in the order and location it is presented.
>  >
>  >
>  > > Semantics and behavior need to be specified - not just the encodings,
> and
>  > > that is all this draft currently has.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > 2)  Sec 5.1 and Sec 5.2 refer to the format of the Encapsulation
> Sub-TLV
>  > > and Protocol Sub-TLV coming from draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 -
> but
>  > > that draft defines not merely the format, but allocates an IANA
> registry
>  > > for additional sub-types that can appear and defines the format and
>  > > contents of the sub-TLV based upon the tunnel type.   I'm nearly
> certain
>  > > that you mean that these sub-tlvs use not merely the same format
> (*does
>  > > variable length fields based upon the allocated type cause issues for
> OSPF
>  > > sub-TLV parsing???*) but can contain any values and sub-TLVs defined
> in
>  > > the relevant IANA registry. As it is written now, there is no
> reference to
>  > > the registry or ability to easily support more tunnel types in the
> future
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> _____________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>