Re: [Softwires] MAP draft 11 question on fragment ID space reduction

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 14 October 2014 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D84B1A882C for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
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 9PkCw9HyNt54 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EED1F1A8821 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D645A1B8415 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57E753E079; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.63] (71.201.198.58) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:32:37 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9F4CC49-3409-482E-8DD1-D60770719370@employees.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:32:35 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <365F683D-89D6-4A42-B9F1-780453D9C1A5@nominum.com>
References: <CAPi140MdbJQBLSRS+g4Jx0G1zm1dx6PLBBQ7oPeALU2z-Vp81g@mail.gmail.com> <A9F4CC49-3409-482E-8DD1-D60770719370@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.201.198.58]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/UvgANzIBEJ1hKTdyUBCsgvv-b6Y
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP draft 11 question on fragment ID space reduction
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:32:39 -0000

On Oct 14, 2014, at 5:01 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> splitting the fragment id space so that there is only a single bit per CPE sounds like a corner case that should be disallowed. I don't know if we have the knowledge to be able to specify exactly how much of the fragment id space is safe to split up though.is it 4, 6, or 8 bits?

There's a lot to think about here.  The fragment ID translation algorithm probably needs to maintain a cache so that it doesn't accidentally overload fragment IDs.   The set of all outstanding fragments has the potential to be larger than the set of all ports in use, so there is definitely reason to be concerned about shrinking the fragment ID space.   However, shrinking the fragment ID space _does_ serve the useful purpose of isolating fragment ID collisions to the nodes that are supposed to be receiving the fragments.

It may be that the right thing to do is to note that this is a problem, make a recommendation, but essentially leave it as future research, since we really haven't analyzed the problem in enough depth to make an informed recommendation.

> if changing back to SHOULD from the MUST would lead people to accept that we leave the exact recommendations for further study I would be happy to do that.

So yes, this might be a good way to go.