IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 06 February 2018 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mls.ietf@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 580EB12D882; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 y250u7e2jc1j; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (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 9C88B12D881; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 143so6538903wma.5; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 14:03:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OHJuhYnRBbzM8GdV4Q+aNzWPjs1yPq72BFxHc+C/4TM=; b=TgfsVYP6S3zFiT1ONypM1zWpO6QW6RxTJ25kFySeYSFzU88PvqbSX6Dtg04mlgJFpK 29ERYRYooAtHFoCIYkoc61poz7Wf/3unbvENjUjnv+TqrSxfdDiCWfVOLIvVNJmDzHi7 QN9+aBVJH0Y+s4CifmPZka+WkgOKScfrb6hl7Gy21YZXff9p4OESlr4FK9X+H0h+r4FP IGx9Hotsyi7l9eP95OSNoLzxttzbCEXvAOh1rHekFA5RX+6d+oalkCj9uckd2XIpNkpF fNJm/KgEaCo3hRvCqay5vTna1muX3kiqubxWN0f1oPKZucV7t2KjscWyXnaEkrBMvEKE xkRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OHJuhYnRBbzM8GdV4Q+aNzWPjs1yPq72BFxHc+C/4TM=; b=GLKcT4nZ3ubgSrp5O/9wcoc9NMDyK3flma4LZU+w0StEPe/dedb0MWe2S7o6K96Oay D+deb3rV0Ne4GYOb/3Z8fWxXAZVGpnvxKtd88Ax8mGjlSeJ5CFSyjZKjJ6hj0bbp8LwS kOOjNct8N1r4FTvcDZPA/etWe1/2AbEs2c/xkIo00u4PgXIwtJR7NBnS76+UhyPOewcy j4Da7Zptr6klfqpEnuzwbToylT75M3yDf30G63bj7fRJA54dz+e8qla9EPX4j6Ke7MZE MzGkpofKqpcx58FZdJeQGEiaekQ6vonWLuKb5uyEz/88PF0r3UlMjkhTuaps7J80tH46 zKLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAaN24Bc5BzVIVKxWFOUkXW2cXCor3XmwVzA2Iqn9GnNzxiQ3gb aXsvRjRp+aXNrV7c8eG/acU9vA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226L/JxxnrpKPJLEnBxJK2q2XoULnIToBrHrwuc55aZOhbdhWTTXqMWdMx0fEJsNTNvTIgVI/w==
X-Received: by 10.80.145.41 with SMTP id e38mr5548797eda.63.1517954588893; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 14:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2003:74:cf60:d651:1998:df11:51d2:9bbc? (p200300065124C4511998DF1151D29BBC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:6:5124:c451:1998:df11:51d2:9bbc]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u17sm247900edm.6.2018.02.06.14.03.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Feb 2018 14:03:08 -0800 (PST)
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, "'Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)'" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: draft-farrel-sfc-convent@ietf.org, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com, sfc-chairs@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org
References: <151759289599.1342.15363054759260139160.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1bce8bb3c4ac4dcd901f0da1c2950fcc@BLUPR05MB370.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <002e01d39c53$40045240$c00cf6c0$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0beb0fae-60f0-1b41-1e8a-97e0113edc8f@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:03:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <002e01d39c53$40045240$c00cf6c0$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/sZUDTBNWYykoh-K6USL5CcPKK8k>
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: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:03:12 -0000

Hi Adrian,

Jumping in here, as the TSVART reviewer:

The document is good modulo what Mirja mentioned about congestion control:

Am 02.02.18 um 19:25 schrieb Adrian Farrel:
[...]
> 
> Consider, if you will, BFD. There *is* rate limiting in BFD, but the rate may be
> pretty fast.
> 
> Anyway, if we construct some text that advises implementations:
> - why to rate limit
> - how to rate limit
> - what rates may be appropriate
> would you review it for us?

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.

BFD (RFC 5880) might be a good start (but only...) when it comes to text 
about congestion control, i.e., to make the implementers and operators 
aware of the issue.

However, as you've written the reasons about why, how and what is much 
better.

I can do the review and help with the text.

Cheers from Southern Europe ;)

   Martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email