Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-03
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 26 May 2020 05:35 UTC
Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54523A0B03; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2urEZ0kGePsv; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 015213A0AFB; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1jdSFF-0002kQ-1n; Tue, 26 May 2020 05:35:21 +0000
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 22:35:20 -0700
Message-ID: <m28shf2r8n.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <30b32e49-9781-056d-0542-f736572a2139@in.tum.de>
References: <158870511665.7532.2079643708622987385@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2sggclma3.wl-randy@psg.com> <c1712c72-fcf1-f2d5-e5ab-f8f4eb3f911d@in.tum.de> <m2y2pibiyd.wl-randy@psg.com> <30b32e49-9781-056d-0542-f736572a2139@in.tum.de>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/lK7iNQRzVGO9hev5jxUwxcNPzNM>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-03
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 05:35:28 -0000
>>>>> 3. When the protocol applies fragmentation, should there be a note on >>>>> preventing bursts? >>>> likely part of this is our fault, as we did not mean 'fragmentation' in >>>> the classic "oops! we found a hop with a small mtu." >>> I didn't take it to mean classic fragmentation but rather ALF-style >>> operation. Still, this could generate bursts depending on how much >>> information there is to 'fragment'. >> yes, it is app level framing. perhaps we should call it that explicitly >> or even segmentataion or some term less well known. >> do you perhaps have a specific suggestion? > Not really. This all appears artificial if you need two or three > packets for app layer fragmentation. Maybe one could write something > substantially improved along the lines of: > To prevent packet bursts, a sender SHOULD pace the transmission of > application layer fragmented data units as follows: A sender MAY > transmit up to K packets containing fragments in a burst and SHOULD > pace bursts ... (but how?) ok. i have stared at this three times today and have no bright ideas. i do not want to start pacing by measuring rtt or other known deep holes. so i will try to think some more. >>> So misconfig could be bad unless there is some delay built in. >> so i added >> >> Although delay and jitter in responding with an OPEN were specified >> above, beware of load created by long strings of authentication >> failures and retries. >> >> but i am unsure of what action to recommend. > > Count to N, raise an alert, pause. Or something like this? A confugurable failure count limit (default 8) SHOULD result in giving up on the connection attempt. randy
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-… Joerg Ott via Datatracker
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Rob Austein
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Randy Bush
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-l… Randy Bush