Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Sun, 09 July 2017 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A20A126C7A for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 14:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 P5A1sw0SgFPs for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 14:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B6BA1242F5 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 14:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=25092; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1499635831; x=1500845431; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=gNiH+UI5jhvmF6KVwS6Fjk3YrO2msYysG5HnwQfaRSQ=; b=K3myAACVKferB2slWOYhvZtgXDsQ4GTXiog2AH1Jq8rdztdB8+olsE9W 7PcDvXYfFaLur/tpLpBXk7LCAOd1BNQRJl3nTCVPL4lWIJpzWZY+mNrs+ lKKCa11W2bnsrlpIVq9xxMcseAAUmv8kgZVc16FQUijnIqQjfpwRX0VZg U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DJAACWn2JZ/4kNJK1cGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgm8+LWSBFI4JlEuFTY1VghEshXACg0k/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkGTC0?= =?us-ascii?q?QAgEIEyUHByEEDRQRAgQOBYlLTAMQBRCseoQOgx4NhAABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEdgyiDTIFhK4J5gTyBG4IPg0eCEh8FnmM7AodGg0WED4RuggyFS4p?= =?us-ascii?q?Li3kxCYkMAQ8QOIEKdRVJEgGER0WBdgF2AYh6AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,336,1496102400"; d="scan'208,217";a="270801914"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Jul 2017 21:30:30 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com (xch-rtp-018.cisco.com [64.101.220.158]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v69LUUgN015244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:30:30 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com (64.101.220.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:30:29 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:30:29 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)
Thread-Topic: WGLC for BFD Multipoint documents (ending July 14, 2017)
Thread-Index: AQHS6TKRH3+h+CPmGE2vggvMdQNmVaJC1vEAgAST7YCAAAlagIACDDSAgAKiW5w=
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:30:29 +0000
Message-ID: <A1417065-61ED-4B31-9A96-C6D0D0F16508@cisco.com>
References: <20170619193929.GE22146@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmUfOe-1u7_MVwNt394B181XavLmTg4gA16v-4Mf1XWhGA@mail.gmail.com> <CACi9rdsWYM96UfTD3K3P88nt9M-vT=9A6YOySbQy8aR4YZL5+A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXkZ9j5OsDBk76UyXpySWibuzyTVTnXbbepMKmFuMeueA@mail.gmail.com>, <CA+RyBmV=jnt9=gqFu_O59cmGErLVD94S_h7vdMH2riZUqa354A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmV=jnt9=gqFu_O59cmGErLVD94S_h7vdMH2riZUqa354A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A141706561ED4B319A96C6D0D0F16508ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/At-cilaV_8Qa8Cj5aBQFuwmdX6A>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:30:35 -0000

Greg,

How would that help interoperability? Seems like it would not matter, hence not mention is appropriate...

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Santosh, et. al,
another note, question on IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD for multipoint networks. The document says nothing about values that may be used for Source UDP port number. Even though MultipointHead will not receive BFD packets from MultipointTail on the UDP port listed, should we recommend to use numbers from dynamic range, i.e. 49152 to 65535? I think that the multipoint document should state, as in RFC 5881:

The source port MUST be in the range 49152 through 65535.

What do you think?

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Santosh,
many thanks for your thoughtful consideration of my comments. Please find my answers and couple more notes in-line and tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com<mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello Greg,
   Thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline tagged[ SPK].

Thanks
Santosh P K

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Authors, WG chairs, et. al,
please kindly consider my comments to the latest version of the draft as part of WGLC:

  *   Very general
     *   I suggest to add note clarifying that all terms that include "connectivity" in the document are being used as alternative to "continuity", i.e. existence of a path between the sender and the receiver, and should not be interpreted as "connectivity verification in terms of transport network".
  *   Introduction
     *   I find that characterization of BFD and unidirectional continuity verification as "natural fit" bit of stretching. Perhaps "capable of supporting this use case" is acceptable;

[SPK] Will take care.
GIM>> Thanks

  *   Goals
     *   the last statement of non-goal seems little unclear. In fact, if there's only one tail, the BFD for multipoint network does verify connectivity, though unidirectional, between the head and the tail. I think that the intention is to stress that p2p bi-directional connectivity verification is not supported by this document.

[SPK] It only says that this document does not support verification of unicast path between head and tail. I can clarify a bit on this. Please let me know if you have a suggestion for this.
GIM>> I'd suggest to use unicast in place of point-to-point. Using my earlier example, in case when there's only one tail multipoint becomes point-to-point.


  *   Section 4.7
     *   the last paragraph notes that the discriminator value MUST NOT be changed. Since Your Discriminator MUST be set to 0 this refers to My Discriminator only. I think that explicit reference will make the statement more clear. Thus suggest s/the discriminator values/the My Discriminator value/

[SPK] Will take care of this.
GIM>> Thanks.

  *   Section 4.8
     *   I believe that requiring use of IP/UDP encapsulation for BFD in multipoint networks over MPSL LSP is too restrictive. I suggest changing text as following:

OLD:

For multipoint LSP, MultipointTail MUST use destination UDP port "3784" and IP "127.0.0.0/8<http://127.0.0.0/8>" range.


NEW

If IP/UDP encapsulation used by MultipointHead for multipoint LSP, MultipointTail MUST use IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD destination UDP port "3784" and IP "127.0.0.0/8<http://127.0.0.0/8>" range.

Use of other types of encapsulation for multipoint LSP is outside the scope of this document.

[SPK] Thanks. I think this make sense for non MPLS tunnels.
GIM>> Thanks. As I've looked at the text, I've realized that it misses IPv6 case. Please consider the following as my new proposed change (not sure but I think that quote marks are not required):
NEW
If IP/UDP encapsulation used by MultipointHead for multipoint LSP, MultipointTail MUST use IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD destination UDP port 3784, and the 127/8 range for IPv4, and the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6.
Use of other types of encapsulation for multipoint LSP is outside the scope of this document.


  *   Section 4.10
     *   I cannot say what bfd.DetectMult packet is. It has not been defined in RFC 5880, nor in this document. What is the scenario described in the second paragraph? Is it when MultipointHead reduces Desired Min TX  Interval thus making defect detection more aggressive?
  *

[SPK] This section talks about how to handle Poll sequence. In case of Multipoint head we cant afford to send POLL and expect all tail to reply with F bit set. Keeping track and building state at headend will be costly.
GIM>> Perhaps I wasn't clear in my question.  It was to the opening of this sentence:

   The MultipointHead MUST send bfd.DetectMult packets with P bit set at
   the old transmit interval before using the higher value in order to
   avoid false detection timeouts at the tails.


I couldn't find reference to "bfd.DetectMult packet" in any document related to BFD.


  *   Section 7
     *   I think it should be plural in the first paragraph, i.e. s/MultipointTail session/MultipointTail sessions/
     *   I think that we can add another consideration to improve, strengthen security of BFD for multipoint network by suggesting that MultipointTail sessions created only for known combination of MultipointHead and My Discriminator. Such information MAY be learned from out-of-band and mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.


Regards,

Greg


On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:
Working Group,

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-04


The BFD Multipoint documents have been stable for some time.  Prior
discussion at meetings has suggested we have an implementation for the main
protocol component.  Also per prior discussions, we split the active-tail
component of the original multipoint document to permit implementors to not
have to worry about implementing active-tail procedures if they weren't
interested in that feature.

We are starting an extended last call on these documents.  The WGLC will
conclude on July 14.  This provides ample time for list discussion.  If
necessary, the IETF-99 meeting may provide for opportunities to close any
contentious technical points.  (BFD is not currently scheduled to meet.)

One item I would like to kick off is the document status of the active-tail
mechanism.  At this time, no one has implemented it that I am aware of.
Discussion with our AD suggests that publishing the document with
Experimental status may be reasonable to preserve the work that went into
the proposal.

-- Jeff