Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-11.txt

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Mon, 09 March 2020 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183353A168F for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=hs-esslingen.de
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 j4SZboQt4CHC for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08A613A1649 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2580925A18; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:00:28 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1583784028; bh=G3o7acL7RZPy6y7+Um/mXdHKYgqJOuy0r3ufDCXM8xM=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:From; b=POgx1XqZtyh5+E/Q1n7nLLNpLfq3y5it0qBM+ToseQ5sxOwcUEcXXhv38vuaaCKVD QLzHB7ThFxpNL34VbkwciPCEOgH2bBcunRRrBUNpfX0GrzpZvfKQylA0hWsVpQQutr Kb9JZowdIiWtAlLrUcZHGv8zEZ/WIgrWdi8/wqV8=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ld-w0XGLmZ-7; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:00:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de [134.108.29.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:00:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.209]) by rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::f977:d5e6:6b09:56ac%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:00:26 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
CC: Richard Scheffenegger <richard.scheffenegger@netapp.com>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-11.txt
Thread-Index: AdX2TV9bQx+r5ugBR/WWKYLzMpk50g==
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 20:00:25 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D9CA5C4@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D9CA5C4rznt8114rzntrzd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/zo-1OR0nRfhHocX8yvTvpC4BNMo>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-11.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 20:00:39 -0000

With chair hat off, I really wonder if the solution to encode the two different orders in the TCP Option is an example for good and robust protocol engineering.

For instance, the current design makes it hard to decode the field in a monitoring tool (such as Wireshark). Also, as far as I understand, it does not allow to switch the encoding during a connection, which limits flexibility. We almost certainly do not understand *now* all future use cases of this Standard.

Unless I miss something, there would be several other solutions:

First, IMHO, we have enough TCP option codepoints left to spend two codepoints if there is a good reason for doing so. As compared to the current design proposal in -10/-11, spending two different option kinds would look to me like *much* better protocol engineering.

Second, if the TCPM community insists in only one option kind codepoint for whatever reason, IMHO one could add one „sub-type“ byte to the option. The TCP Option field has to be multiples of 4 byte, i.e., if a segment only contains a 11 byte AccECN TCP option, an additional NOP TCP option is needed for padding, no? So, what downside have 12 bytes as compared to 11 bytes? For the shorter variants, the overhead of a „sub-type“ field increases, but it may still be within reasonable limits. What do I miss?

Third, one could use different lengths for the different orders, e.g., lenths 5/8/11 for type 0 and 6/9/12 for type 12. Is this not possible?

In all these cases, the resulting protocol looks simpler and more robust to me. What prevents us from using the KISS principle?

Michael



Von: Bob Briscoe<mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. März 2020 04:34
An: tcpm IETF list<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Cc: Richard Scheffenegger<mailto:richard.scheffenegger@netapp.com>; Mirja Kuehlewind<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Betreff: Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-11.txt

tcpm,

You will have seen draft-10 then draft-11 in quick succession, as already explained.
The diffs from draft-09 to -10 were those that had built up since Jul'19.
The diffs from draft-10 to -11 were solely those for the change from EXP track to STD track.
Draft-10 doesn't seem to display in the list of links to each version, but you can manually write the URL.

The main technical changes in draft-10 were numerous - many will be recognized from list discussion since Jul'19.
Particular thanks to Ilpo Järvinen who identified many niggles (and their solutions) while writing and testing a full Linux implementation (based on Olivier Tilmans's, in turn based on Mirja's).

  *   Allowed 2 different orders of the fields in the AccECN Option
  *   Reflect IP-ECN field of SYN/ACK only on ACK of SYN/ACK, not also on first data packet
     *   greatly simplifies implementation, esp with TFO.
     *   repeating on first data packet was for reliable delivery, which is now achieved with ACE counter (see next bullet)
  *   Increment the ACE counter if CE on SYN/ACK (but still not if CE on SYN)
     *   Reliable delivery of feedback of CE on SYN/ACK
  *   Redefine 'first packet' as first to arrive, not first in sequence in 2 cases:
     *   Handshake reflection on the ACK of the SYN/ACK
     *   In the test for zeroing of ACE
     *   Reason: greatly simplifies implementation
  *   if ACE could have wrapped more than once, SHOULD assume “safest likely case”
not "conservatively assume" it did cycle
     *   Reason: avoid unnecessary hit on performance
  *   More robustness (with flexibility) in rules for when to include an AccECN Option
     *   Change-triggered AccECN Option as SHOULD, not MUST
     *   SHOULD follow change-triggered AccECN Option with another (removes ambiguity if ACK thinning or loss)
     *   when same counter continues to increment, SHOULD consistently include it every n ACKs
     *   Made rule about precedence of SACK conditional (max 2 SACK blocks)
     *   MAY exclude counters that have not changed for the whole connection
  *   Allowed an AccECN server not to implement RFC3168 ECN (all clients still have to)
  *   Precluded mixed capability negotiation from either end
     *   reduces freedom to choose SYN & SYN/ACK fall-back strategies
     *   to prevent cases where each end's outcome after handshake could be inconsistent (in reordering corner-cases)
  *   Reserved the codepoint combination used by the historic nonce case
  *   Merged in a number of points from RFC3168 that we hadn't covered
     *   (a whole new subsection about obligations to do with ECN)
  *   Explicit about checking "acceptable packets"
     *   before counting their ECN markings or before counting the ECN feedback they carry
  *   Required retransmitted Fallback SYN to use same ISN
     *   allows servers to detect ECN downgrade SYN attacks
  *   Handled corner cases like In-window SYN during TIME-WAIT


Bob
On 06/03/2020 02:24, internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:



A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-11.txt

has been successfully submitted by Bob Briscoe and posted to the

IETF repository.



Name:            draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn

Revision: 11

Title:           More Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP

Document date:   2020-03-05

Group:           tcpm

Pages:           58

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-11.txt

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn/

Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-11

Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn

Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-11



Abstract:

   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is a mechanism where network

   nodes can mark IP packets instead of dropping them to indicate

   incipient congestion to the end-points.  Receivers with an ECN-

   capable transport protocol feed back this information to the sender.

   ECN is specified for TCP in such a way that only one feedback signal

   can be transmitted per Round-Trip Time (RTT).  Recent new TCP

   mechanisms like Congestion Exposure (ConEx), Data Center TCP (DCTCP)

   or Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) need more accurate

   ECN feedback information whenever more than one marking is received

   in one RTT.  This document specifies a scheme to provide more than

   one feedback signal per RTT in the TCP header.  Given TCP header

   space is scarce, it allocates a reserved header bit, that was

   previously used for the ECN-Nonce which has now been declared

   historic.  It also overloads the two existing ECN flags in the TCP

   header.  The resulting extra space is exploited to feed back the IP-

   ECN field received during the 3-way handshake as well.  Supplementary

   feedback information can optionally be provided in a new TCP option,

   which is never used on the TCP SYN.









Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission

until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.



The IETF Secretariat







--

________________________________________________________________

Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/