Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-03

Randy Bush <> Tue, 26 May 2020 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54523A0B03; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2urEZ0kGePsv; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 015213A0AFB; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1jdSFF-0002kQ-1n; Tue, 26 May 2020 05:35:21 +0000
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 22:35:20 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Joerg Ott <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.