Re: Treatment of ICMP for PMTU

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 02 July 2018 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860C6130E36 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 01:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 bziMPRnFOsoy for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 01:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (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 4069F129C6A for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 01:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1530521149; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=KTYAiJKu7dZHGh4e6usGanjwY3TOoVOyVFSlQIhbyWQ=; b=dmNhvU+PxBTqy/t3ajOmMCf6K8iUTF6Jsbbv1tmpjn28jryAjmHCOU4UeFx8WK7x bZzVR8yft6S7qCl1RXtFLxcW2TgXjv+kWwyDMiDFzci59YvZgiX8JeY/TzPI9c2H SEYUzJ6WkvSGBIJQXPH6jAnEhtwnv09mpSW8atzuINc=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-dcb6e9c0000079c1-e0-5b39e63d8d64
Received: from ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.120]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6F.BD.31169.D36E93B5; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:45:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [147.214.20.27] (153.88.183.153) by ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.163) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:45:47 +0200
Subject: Re: Treatment of ICMP for PMTU
To: "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
CC: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
References: <924fbd75dbcf4d62a9062570b0d2ba5a@ustx2ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com> <802647B5-94B5-4C24-BEFA-4B44F5B5E832@netapp.com> <43152ecf9538418ab26c23747c4d1d74@ustx2ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com>
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <4aef7f4c-327e-9651-80f8-990cc855d627@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 10:45:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <43152ecf9538418ab26c23747c4d1d74@ustx2ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DD5D1EAE514950E2644135BF"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Originating-IP: [153.88.183.153]
X-ClientProxiedBy: ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) To ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.163)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprAIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7ha7tM8tog62PxSyOzTrBZPHidQ+L xfTHL9gsehZwO7B4nFh2hdVj56y77B5Llvxk8pjx6QtbAEsUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8bK5a8Z Cx6ZVhybn9TAeFWri5GTQ0LAROLu5/PsXYxcHEICRxkl9k5uYIZw3jFKLDv6jBGkSlhAXeL3 pQnsILaIQLzE7FPXwWxmAXeJUz2trBAN5xklzty5zgaSYBOwkLj5oxHM5hWwl/jVcgGsgUVA ReLBjHdgQ0UFYiRWb7zMDlEjKHFy5hMWEJtTIFii+fU6JogFYRIbt8IsE5do+rKSFcQWEtCW aGjqYIV4QUni+rzrLBB2usS0p2uYJjAKzUIydhaSUbOQjIKwLSRmzj/PCGHLSzRvnc0MYWtI tM6Zy44svoCRfRWjaHFqcXFuupGRXmpRZnJxcX6eXl5qySZGYDwd3PLbagfjweeOhxgFOBiV eHgPnbeMFmJNLCuuzD3EKMHBrCTCK/rRPFqINyWxsiq1KD++qDQntfgQozQHi5I4r1OaRZSQ QHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBkZuPRa53aafl3aJ5Tq+mPzM2ydk7z0vVYuHxtc0PBY4/cVZe E+HdMPfC5mfvzWcnmkmUiIQf26pWcaknqdhgu1C8pb288r6rL86EvJzbZ+qQmCeftc2TYVdJ wWbhpLBYsYk3HLz0CgwKWq6tC1MV3pK/Mlk7SCsaGP/aL44cXqM6KcLWslGJpTgj0VCLuag4 EQAfPeXgowIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/dxi0rnt_lWfZ3ndi0pqRYkfDPcw>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 08:45:54 -0000

Hi,


Den 2018-06-29 kl. 02:30, skrev Lubashev, Igor:
>>>   • What to do, when an IPv4 ICMP (w/o on-path proof) request a PMTU reduction (after handshake)?
>> Isn't this sufficiently covered in 4821?
> Not really.  Or, at least I could not find anything more useful there then: "If an ICMP PTB message is received matching the probe packet, then search_high and eff_pmtu MAY be set from the MTU value indicated in the message."  So 4821 seems silent on what to do if ICMP is received for a non-probe packet, and it seems silent on how one could decide whether to set search_high and eff_pmtu from the MTU in ICMP or not (saying "MAY" does not really help here).  These questions are what I am trying to address for QUIC.
>
> 4821 uses MAY in the sentence above, since it does not really give any better indication.  This PR draws a distinction between ICMP w/ and w/o on-path proof and in some specific cases, it recommends a SHOULD.
>
>
If you look at the updated PLPMTUD:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud/

3.3. Reducing the PLPMTU: Confirming Path Characteristics

    If the DPLPMTUD method detects that a packet with the PLPMTU size is
    no supported by the network path, then the DLPMTUD method needs to
    validate the PLPMTU. This can happen when a validated PTB message is
    received, or another event that indicates the network path no longer
    sustains this packet size, such as a loss report from the PL

    All implementations of DPLPMTUD are REQUIRED to provide support that
    reduces the PLPMTU when the actual PMTU supported by a network path
    is less than the PLPMTU.


Section 4.9 says:

    PROBE_DONE: The PROBE_DONE state indicates a successful end to a
       probing phase.  DPLPMTUD remains in this state until either the
       PMTU_RAISE_TIMER expires or a received PTB message is verified.


However, I have to say that the draft is a bit unclear on what to do at 
this point.

I guess the options are two.

Probe starting at PTB_SIZE or verify Base_MTU and then probe up. From my 
perspective, the important is that one uses this a signal for checking 
the PMTU.

I will start a thread on TSVWG WG mailing list regarding the lack of 
specific text in their draft for this case.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------