Re: [tsvwg] Classifying on ECT(1) (was: Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021)

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Wed, 24 March 2021 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3DA73A2860 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 uGfxNUc3CnOK for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 B502E3A2862 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1616577978; bh=vn8w0zjEA9/9bB1e+ciseXsgy8hE73hdDZemocKprrg=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=D0zXS2yAWRPjWcsi2zX3a3V7mmLv5k3sLXpWzAhUt9JQLjbOz3Ivea5Yne8LK1EUq 5leuAg0nOr7xoh8SKqcK9YcXPhRV+ffbWXLTEV5dyELW23VoRyv5kC4ToJqJxEjoxT +Ik+AWujMosjsrSQi4Dn/K0XiHIY84mrW8Yi1lIs=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.250.106] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M4b1o-1lPXkC3ZdW-001gep; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:26:18 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <FRYP281MB0112F0244CDB274DCA1C51C49C639@FRYP281MB0112.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:26:17 +0100
Cc: slblake@petri-meat.com, tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <60EFB621-87CC-4751-8577-313A43452215@gmx.de>
References: <AM8PR07MB7521EC7F5DEF922BEB1E9A2DE0649@AM8PR07MB7521.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <139ccff1822e9c7d9e96005c303d875d17cbae9d.camel@petri-meat.com> <FRYP281MB0112F0244CDB274DCA1C51C49C639@FRYP281MB0112.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:XqYUUPK1Qn3GM8A4J4osRVaiki9LNpi+uloi5ivRSVrC08ym3pg VCndI7ncDsWCbqFP85mwoHcqAGFXLrTPwVq0HXOiBN1sJRcYptez7qAWri3f7lESWFF1rFo 8QsDxkgElWOd6pEB7eNGcQOcAf2f0CSMpsFv3tjLftzsBilbz0DyvFheu2//JOnQHOI53dJ XdcVcIG8uQ22WRknVqIUA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:EsEJL+rVMG8=:T4tZ8HR/suIxgKoZvlU/+j /8w7Pp+77sNDlNGevN2cv7kez6W6CjYCe9YksRsOCwuwbFQxTDPNxLjBEm/+lCLhanV37cHnE o6mh3fBYIKlnX0WplcYhXjr0BYqa5A8y5G9w5zKDjVOQPkgOmxAgim08h0EwuEHYiv6xyIA9R CGubplzEXr6Jv84Z+a0+g0/oGRxWzsnPql+q5GL3yt8bjLA5tCEzCmeiumK8cgo3EKA1uQ3oe 8ZSIvuHWcXNFRcE6Vm2+svbOolL0XmXuCUYpUYr62Q6FGYNimFm13QmztqI0qAwNviLofehiP 0qt7eNZ/XqvKoJ/Ro2/f3e+81te4vSi938T8alIRx95nzgJpflQg9IoaUNMW2fuHlO62GGYGT mMuIZAc37XlneCa00DZM72WXXtnvZWUa5+svueO2cbmc3zNCwYcVnN07EA1inT7fZtzJzvEdk JwKedItY8OJwaBaz8a0KKU8DFkBJG7x0v6Q8MyZyG6jXN2UxF8u3CmbftIRb2e2tFT3NwvWrO QbI0NWRTgNQkDM2charydfx10nSFFS4jdkhhzB3wiZ6/huTyxxP7Kg1WlpqVUWhxfSQvACwGI KzMsniwPMO5ktsz1LWqwChesIPX1DJjTEEA1Ks/M+6Oy2TUJWsdx+xROpGcMkY9SUuljxidO/ pO2FEOFr/8PTf/c6G6NoKJn3UtFeHwh0uff/Fozg3jBWfblEE7M1JIc1hHg+LJq965HGPKLS3 Ob6F+ZeDhTVZfyNprVFoZngX4Ux6qlCkzI6wu3o2gAbXK0HiHGwxGi4COz7EgXPn6JgDWq+lR F1hE0WBtSPtMzTv+UnvPMkPJpWanJuJnp+sRNnWPGC9H/IFOB58RmjQGZywVryrQL9MiogIF1 WMsa+YBM05T7Sm1PM2ZQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/BRZ62VbgcYo0IxlDicgFG5QEGCE>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Classifying on ECT(1) (was: Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:27:09 -0000

Hi Ruediger,


do you know the cost of doing FPM filtering on all packets? That is, is such filtering something operators do routinely in production networks (as I expect), or is that a feature used for debugging mostly due to high computational cost? 


Best Regards
	Sebastian


> On Mar 24, 2021, at 07:56, <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I'd suggest to concentrate on routers present at interconnection / IP-layer (if an operator doesn't participate in an L4S experiment and you assume presence of L4S traffic, peering and transit interconnections likely act as sources, I assume). Juniper PTX is designed as a Label Switch Router. It can be deployed on IP layer too, but as far as I recall, its capabilities are limited as compared to Juniper MX.
> 
> Regards, Ruediger
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Steven Blake
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. März 2021 01:07
> An: Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <olivier.tilmans@nokia-bell-labs.com>
> Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
> Betreff: Re: [tsvwg] Classifying on ECT(1) (was: Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021)
> 
> On Tue, 2021-03-23 at 10:06 +0000, Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia -
> BE/Antwerp) wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> Sec. 4 (Operator of a Network) of the draft presumes that deployed  
>>> equipment is capable to classifying packets specifically on ECT(1).
>>> Have the authors confirmed that this feature is available on 
>> commonly  > deployed operator gear (e.g., IOS-XR, JUNOS)?
>> 
>> FPM on IOS/flexible-match firewall filters on Junos enable you to 
>> classify  based on arbitrary bit masks, and use classification results 
>> as usual, e.g., map to qos-groups/CoS/VRF/...
>> 
>> The associated deployment complexity/feasibility will of course vary 
>> on a config by config basis, i.e., your NOC is likely your best source 
>> of answers.
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Olivier
> 
> Thanks. Are you sure FPM is supported on IOS-XR? I'm not finding any evidence of that. I'm not finding any evidence that it is supported on Juniper PTX boxes, either, and the story for MX boxes seems confusing.
> 
> Since this is critical to enabling operators (not participating in an
> experiment) to protect themselves from L4S traffic, it would be worthwhile to confirm this capability is widely available on deployed gear. Perhaps the draft could include some configuration information in an appendix?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> // Steve
> 
> 
> 
>