Re: [spring] Understanding the replication draft

Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 01 July 2020 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F2C3A1242 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 mY4_PFtwbVRa for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 59FC23A123D for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49xmkm12Hkz1nwh9; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1593620640; bh=KPeG+1HXkEu1ErCgoildkBiOUoYcKdgE2/2A56xoBzI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=BVODibXAWmGd08RnO6yuRTywMBPqgF48KgnHEolPC2/njoXk//BnQBVK5l5vD7NEX KLzp3u8PCncq497uhWFeR2dfB3GxhI9AII2KVtlAbVPyR0KRYV9lc/km2DEtzDviex tR/97/rJWsKw6Y48gVnj3BgPiWRnTEIJ/L6iRHlw=
X-Quarantine-ID: <fN4AeulIAjqV>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49xmkl4R2Qz1p5kS; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
References: <94415742-fc4e-1774-bf96-01eac3672bfb@joelhalpern.com> <CABjMoXYCsXb-iP55PsNWHBG187Lm7-2PXfgD3qRn_aD6ppDuMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <b3aaaa47-af61-6fc0-1086-bfd59efea061@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:23:57 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABjMoXYCsXb-iP55PsNWHBG187Lm7-2PXfgD3qRn_aD6ppDuMw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4uZvo7eBhp6tg-LhwRzTETnXkD4>
Subject: Re: [spring] Understanding the replication draft
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 16:24:09 -0000

I am not sure I understand the answer.  I do see that the local 
processing is described in the draft.  But that is not what I am asking.

I am going to try to simplify the conventions to ask the question.  I 
will list SIDs in the order they will be visited.  And mark G-SID-X for 
a global SID, and R-SID-X for a replication SID.

Suppose the stack looks like

G-SID-1
R-SID-1
G-SID-2
G-SID-3
R-SID-2
G-SID-4

So the packet gets delivered to the node identified by G-SID-1.  Great. 
That node sees an R-SID which it understands.  So presumably it 
replicates the packet, and sends the packet (possibly with some 
prepended labels, presumably different prepended labels for different 
destination, controlled by policy.  No problem with that part.)

Now each of the packets geet to the end of the prepended labels, and 
each copy sees G-SID-2.  At which point all of these various nodes that 
have received copies of the packet all send it to the node identified by 
G-SID-2.  Huh?  We just bombarded a node with useless and potentially 
harmful copies of the packet.  then all those copies go to G-SID-3, 
which then processes R-SID-2, and replicates each and every copy to some 
set of destinations.  Which then eventually bombard the node identified 
by G-SID-4.

If the document said that the replication SID when it appears in the 
stack must be the last SID in the stack, and was either terminal for SID 
processing or was a binding SID, the above problem would be avoided. 
But the draft does not say that.  Nor does your reply.

Is there some other way this explosion is avoided?  This seems to need 
to be described in the SPRING draft in order for any of us to understand 
if the approach is what we want as a starting point.  just the idea of 
replication segments is not, in my personal view, enough clarity or 
value to be adopted as a working group document.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/1/2020 12:06 PM, Rishabh Parekh wrote:
> Joel,
> Your request was not "lost", but it fell between the cracks :)
> 
> Anyway, responses inline.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:17 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>
>> I asked the authors a version of this question, but apparently my
>> request got lost.
>>
>> For now, this is speaking as an individual.  And I sincerely hope that I
>> am merely missing something obvious.
>>
>> I can not figure out from the current draft how the replication segment
>> works in a SID (or label) stack.
>> Is there an unstated requirement that the segment must be the last one
>> in the stack?
>> If not, how is a global SID after teh replication SID understood?
> 
> [RP] Replication SID does not need to be the last segment in the
> stack. Although Section 2 of draft does not state this explicitly, If
> there are other non-replication SIDs following the Replication SID,
> the NEXT operation at a downstream node of the segment should process
> those SIDs as normal.
> 
>> Or is a replication SID implicitly also a binding SID, replacing the
>> rest of the stack no matter where it is in the stack?
>>      In which case it is implicitly effectively last?
> 
> [RP] At a root or a Replication SID, when the active segment is a
> Replication SID, it does act like a Binding SID in that it steers the
> packet into the Replication segment towards downstream nodes. Note
> that additional SIDs might be added on top of the Replication SID to
> steer the packet from Root to a given downstream node. The Replication
> SID will be at bottom of any such SIDs added to steer the packet, but
> again it does not have to be the bottom most SID in the stack.
> 
>> Given taht a replication segment is qualified to a node, what happens if
>> there is more than one in a stack?  Is it ignored when it hits a node it
>> does not apply to?
> 
> [RP] On a given node, if an active SID in the stack is a Replication
> SID that the node does not understand, it cannot process the packet.
> This would be similar to any other kind of SID for which a node does
> not have any state.
>>
>> Do I believe this can be made to work?  Yes.
>> But I can not understand how the WG could adopt the work with its
>> current lack of clarity.
>> And this appears to me to be fundamental enough stuff that it can't be
>> left to documents in other WGs.  It seems central to the definition and
>> processing of replication SIDs.
>>
> 
> [RP] Section 2 does specify behavior associated with Replication SID
> at different nodes in terms of PUSH, CONTINUE or NEXT operations. If
> it is not clear, we can enhance the text.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel - speaking as a participant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> spring@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>