Re: [pim] review of draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-06

Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net> Tue, 22 December 2020 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lenny@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94AB3A1287 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=q6wag8cs; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=NWHI53LB
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 toTrRs5lc6kG for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85EA23A1273 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108159.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BML08wv027412 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:54 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type; s=PPS1017; bh=4Psz92IPNt8pKpE1RMXcuY+ePptCSQOjIgukQIIJlGQ=; b=q6wag8csNN4ehnsivj5pXl58cAhV0iGeTOhpykg12Avq5fn3VRFDJu4Rv8iUSEHLyXyl Fg2h/Dq18/UgGNn7wG/WmtH4A6v3WH7ee3Z6tsEk2FYK+5RHhUNjSrr+7uejlSWc4ZLK mUb41BFt9Fk8ugBn8BQbjYjdPrRADtmfdBuBhi5bR5faq1Wh6qbanXUFUYb6XrwVuXS+ nOjtr/A57O+VRB+6p8Enf6AKtLjnqJ77Z9FAykjrfuFjZ9HaWQ2MKVXPnQGxSrDLIQGM G+i9JOytFy5gPXgMhxg0b7FO9JC89auN+Udw586bkiwVWlB9crvQZzSkui/vEpxD1Njg PA==
Received: from nam12-dm6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam12lp2176.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.59.176]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35k0e2a6h5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:54 -0800
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ToWQBpAebfkzM1H6mbWldIm6tt9KgeovazoQAvIMk7sMBDGw5LCE+lDsumlEvsgELxdQjZMFE5kZY3xMZhv7BT5bu5VNLWuojdQiOgGGMjc6V3k9YRDLm0izYQ8eVREGAsPHEfLk5qnkzdW0JRcfZjy8p/Djr/BHQ2+ysvTw3/9ONhsS7Eia9J96KlsZLmEPtjzNlfIw/DXFTXjV3JJ39NL31P2Xd1oim3baCZRB6fjqnBLr82UIh5Q9njDUCjwIEw8tZ6QuBMvQLBMse+77VEpnRT71vqg/i8OtCSgXnyAOzbLGi46NQTscIFyA05k2nrWGXEFGU+5n4UMOX+rFzw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4Psz92IPNt8pKpE1RMXcuY+ePptCSQOjIgukQIIJlGQ=; b=RjPVpY9j8eDL7OdqF3tyAcoxTRpTmHLgXwGv/ToUgr1+AjVOC7YsLmc/8iJu08DeuR3BECHpzsYDf3o9QITnVhtCgpz87HgYwZbhsW5GI9J/snYg/zbrylp14c2ZYq7ExfEwKuvJ92x/YExe4vOy+OCfxJ98wjQqvPp2KktifWL6Lb5A23hCopyKhwNcMnTglY0znl84zWThf1zJJc4ENuMilp30zn8uDmoR13FdP2qWMMsnNscWNqYJowFN0f8Ozt0anAd1eTDWKD7YkwMoZaBSew9Cz6pY2C3g/aGPMUVlNmDycUZNfO1q4ldmhhtfhn6vcI4K3VW3IRHakbpjhA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=softfail (sender ip is 66.129.239.13) smtp.rcpttodomain=ietf.org smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=fail (p=reject sp=reject pct=100) action=oreject header.from=juniper.net; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4Psz92IPNt8pKpE1RMXcuY+ePptCSQOjIgukQIIJlGQ=; b=NWHI53LBka4EoPGKf2iCXM9VWHJlKm1pALFzcT1K601VWiRtY75rcHJM55uiOddlsE33U30ZFHkdqhwGUsl5zXqIljnawcOgpzL+zzRB6lNVSnMJNP8QvZRGsGx/LdRSfLHyHBLuuR8SZLeJmbTr0ULdG5CRqMGlOYPpN5cxd+w=
Received: from MWHPR07CA0016.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:116::26) by MN2PR05MB6207.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:c1::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3700.19; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 21:03:51 +0000
Received: from MW2NAM12FT061.eop-nam12.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:116:cafe::bc) by MWHPR07CA0016.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:300:116::26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3676.30 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 21:03:51 +0000
X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=softfail (sender IP is 66.129.239.13) smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=fail action=oreject header.from=juniper.net;
Received-SPF: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning juniper.net discourages use of 66.129.239.13 as permitted sender)
Received: from P-EXFEND-EQX-02.jnpr.net (66.129.239.13) by MW2NAM12FT061.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.13.181.253) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.3676.10 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 21:03:49 +0000
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) by P-EXFEND-EQX-02.jnpr.net (10.104.8.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:48 -0800
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) by P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:48 -0800
Received: from p-mailhub01.juniper.net (10.104.20.6) by P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:48 -0800
Received: from eng-mail03.juniper.net (eng-mail03.juniper.net [10.108.22.11]) by p-mailhub01.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id 0BML3mcF022133 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:03:48 -0800 (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
Received: from eng-mail03.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eng-mail03.juniper.net (8.16.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPS id 0BML4FY3090042 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:04:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
Received: from localhost (lenny@localhost) by eng-mail03.juniper.net (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) with ESMTP id 0BML4ANK090039 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:04:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
X-Authentication-Warning: eng-mail03.juniper.net: lenny owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:04:10 -0800
From: Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>
To: <pim@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <85e5560-ec0-d98-dcbc-68ae3391248@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <f8f11a53-7b1d-2ceb-2750-87eb16a6f6a9@juniper.net>
References: <85e5560-ec0-d98-dcbc-68ae3391248@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e3cb0ff2-54e7-4646-8a04-0dae4ac7b136
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 221fe3cc-3fcf-4236-8f7b-08d8a6bd1447
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: MN2PR05MB6207:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <MN2PR05MB620743A0FEBB29B919BB7CB0A4DF0@MN2PR05MB6207.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:9508;
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: SMosaoD2hDGoFGbEurFimwtvhGYyHigknZGs4wH6momSSsbhuUyjD7vdsnvAn3kz4MpmfmR8JvajQrsRzJjTQPri2awacluh8Xwszrgqfms5vZkXOyjqnWQQjlWmNpcC2vSLqu/6H/gRwuPAQ2S576hWw9UpuCleW5UX3MGLZXd4eIpq6Qxaw7tVn3eX0KAPu5DyCPjPHbwZLVJEa9IqN0CHdHnQLDUYFx5m0StNjgOf6ziDrWG3XH4db3N9LKBQFhCan3s9dMEYVdUz/IdyM56ST9F+Mgkfq5W/SJSiioCmOadg9Eh6dlxJ+mC0md6joDs6W2G4Cs+CKWhKX66S6nOGL9DncPO3Qz9DSj7fZjeGMWJeIK1+gJB6tBnyBUInmeUlwLd02mqbQ+4+zcd7aaBqEL5dw7oD4pq04FLmxPThv15WKu7DB1BhrySsaA7vhS0PMglRYwzaeo7MRHAt/Q==
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.13; CTRY:US; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:P-EXFEND-EQX-02.jnpr.net; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(376002)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(46966005)(6916009)(186003)(316002)(31686004)(70586007)(70206006)(36756003)(86362001)(478600001)(81166007)(8936002)(26005)(356005)(2906002)(83380400001)(5660300002)(47076004)(8676002)(31696002)(2616005)(426003)(82740400003)(336012)(82310400003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2020 21:03:49.1109 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 221fe3cc-3fcf-4236-8f7b-08d8a6bd1447
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; Ip=[66.129.239.13]; Helo=[P-EXFEND-EQX-02.jnpr.net]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MW2NAM12FT061.eop-nam12.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR05MB6207
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-22_11:2020-12-21, 2020-12-22 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012220153
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Ir8YFfEJFm3B97YakNAEj0s7_BI>
Subject: Re: [pim] review of draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-06
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 21:03:56 -0000

One more item after seeing Abhishek's coments that warrants clarification:

-Sect 7: Last 2 sentences of this para refer to "unpacked PIM Register" 
messages.  I assumed these were referring to data-encapped PIM register 
messages, not Null-Registers.  Is my assumption correct?  If not, I think 
the doc should consistently specify "Null-Registers" when referring to 
Register messages without encapped data, and "Register messages" (without 
the "Null" before it) should always be assumed to have data-encap.

-Lenny

On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Leonard Giuliano wrote:

| 
| I reviewed the Null-Register packing draft and found it to be a well-written,
| concise and clear doc specifying a very simple optimization. Very much
| appreciate the brevity of this doc.  A few very minor (mostly editorial) nits,
| plus one question:
| 
| -sect2, 1st para, last sentence: "when it learns RP is capable"
| 	-learns the RP
| 
| -sect8, last sentence: "the number of records should be limited to the MTU of
| the outgoing interface."
| 	-might be more appropriate to say "limited by the MTU"
| 
| -sect9, 2nd para, last sentence: "these messages are not required for
| PIM-SSM."
| 	-'required' implies they could be optionally used in SSM, so it might
| be better to say "these messages are not used in PIM-SSM."
| 
| -sect9, 3rd para, 1st sentence: "case where a spoof Register can be sent"
| 	-"spoofed Register message"
| 
| 
| -sect9, 3rd para, 2nd sentence: "This can cause Null-Registers to not be
| received by the RP."
| 	-might be better to say "This can cause packed Null-Registers to be
| sent to an RP that doesnt support this packed format."
| 
| -sect9, 3rd para, 3rd sentence: consider revising this sentence.  Maybe
| something like "For example, uRPF can be used to filter spoofed packets."
| 
| -Sect6: this recommendation seems equally applicable to Anycast RP with MSDP
| for the same reasons as it is being recommended for Anycast RP with PIM.
| 
| Substantive question: could there ever be a case where an RP might need to
| send Register-stops for only a subset of the s-g pairs that were in the packet
| null-register message?  I couldn't think of a reason, but thought I'd ask.
| 
| -Lenny
|