IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 09 March 2018 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D1A124F57; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:58:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=gmail.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 N9eP7sSCrorM; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:58:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A64127342; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:58:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id b8so7956474oib.11; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:58:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=p4KPl1IG4+NvONxdJjNOk3On0d/LA9tC3x2EEhLU6q0=; b=AxxLIMPUB4ulpgHRBJ0iaH+OzBZtAj+sznUUE520lQOvibeicFGwSAQ4PyOc6HbDZ9 mS2DZ1rGtuJA1QpchZ8ouBexstpq5JmYQZw/8RVWBYCgkXZ1xwptTczwWPUXL/qKk0sb bJUcx5QQmR3d2ZWEAEDe/93oTlCebuGlHU9OAGAcvzr3Huk3uanUdTbgVN9dThJJWsJV yL5KhpvAgqGP5KxxiNwEigYtdUfIE5xZtKNDAQn7YCE3KYukqBXtRXCh/2WHmyv/Udr8 Q3QnaGBMOBm6hD+2RATaC6A9zlFUqyLWzCaQttUaG78SaQfkirFDM34dZYHx9PMgn1uC QHtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=p4KPl1IG4+NvONxdJjNOk3On0d/LA9tC3x2EEhLU6q0=; b=AC03ROP4xFjbGYsf/+osmXEo0YNxkq4CT3ExjchP/zTNfuffD1J3TskE3EJKKalAO6 DcgmhsVWDLupU/QpnK6wDO+BJC8rdLAbiBmEQEv3L6PXfPZkHJiyzuBiV8edYFgh3Gf9 E0VIzI6c0bi8dNKxFDn73Vn2F4CE9hivIW2AvnHaqr506/2nZKnrJnFMjfh8NNhJEo+K blV8/784g3xWEhlcCEESaGy7LesTYti4TVO8tWtFe8HAwW3s0rcSVT4Hs4sNtk1dKgyh f2hgLDQJGMIvQuXLWjZqCALzInFAmwPB0CxIKHygZPtzF8DcnYdC8nT4ecfyehorMwej 7jkw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F4Ylns/n/SoNS23AKNb6+rqljDFIOfGmYQR5F/MPeJauytkRZq Ft+aplj+FEy1PrzZHB+ef5DmLyaPSDTmyQ8AxbM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELs0kXK35fQoqCm/DYVbxdx/ZeIbANc8AHDW0Jcl9G5dLZQNlB9ORPWSyNNMNj9GFT35CWUK6rUW+wcP5CysCEA=
X-Received: by 10.202.80.138 with SMTP id e132mr20775572oib.269.1520629111006; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:58:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.68.57 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:58:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <09c501d3a11d$f7107210$e5315630$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <151759289599.1342.15363054759260139160.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1bce8bb3c4ac4dcd901f0da1c2950fcc@BLUPR05MB370.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <002e01d39c53$40045240$c00cf6c0$@olddog.co.uk> <0beb0fae-60f0-1b41-1e8a-97e0113edc8f@gmail.com> <09c501d3a11d$f7107210$e5315630$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 15:58:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdm3-9j7=6xKydAttYOxtsApK=QM_LM2c3RNEY=hBhToQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-farrel-sfc-convent@ietf.org, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, sfc-chairs@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Service Function Chaining IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113b05f8ff2dd60567010d4d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/6G04Sjy3MZZgKYgJexxt4nDVFdA>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:58:35 -0000

Hi Mirja,

I believe that version draft-farrel-sfc-convent-06 addresses your Discuss.
Could you please take a look?

I'd like to get this sent off to the RFC Editor before Weds of IETF week,
of course.

Thanks,
Alia

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Thanks Martin and Mirja,
>
> > and it is probably explicitly noteworthy that one incoming packet can
> > trigger one (or even multiple ?) new packet which may increase the
> > number of packets related to the incoming flow by a factor of 2.
>
> Well, it might be possible to create a use case that does that. OAM, for
> example, might cause a one-for-one copy. But one might as well say that
> this is a concern with IP because the payload protocol might result in one
> packet creating multiple replies.
>
> But since this document is somewhat open-ended about how the is used, we
> should certainly flag up the concern with two mitigations:
> 1. Applications using this mechanism should be careful about this issue
> 2. Implementations should rate limit to:
>   a. Protect against simple volume attacks (and accidents)
>   b. Protect against amplification
>
> I'll send some text SOON.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email