Re: [tsvwg] [Int-area] 2nd TSVWG WGLC on ecn-encap-guidelinesandrfc6040-update-shim drafts, closes 6 May 2019

[Markku Kojo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gorry,

not sure if you are referring text in drafts/RFC 3168 or trext in Bob's 
emails below?

This is about the conflict between RFC 3168 and the two drafts in 2nd 
TSVWG WGLC. As Bob put it, the two drafts recommend CE marking the same 
number of outgoing as incoming CE-marked octets when reassembling, while 
RFC 3168 mandates using logical OR of CE-marked fragments when 
reassembling. The latter is in Section 5.3 of RFC 3168:

"Reassembly  of a fragmented packet MUST NOT lose indications of 
congestion. In other words, if any fragment of an IP packet to be 
reassembled has the CE codepoint set, then one of two actions MUST be
taken:
- Set the CE codepoint on the reassembled packet."

and continues with other details and an alternative.

/Markku

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> Can you help: which lines of text were you looking at?
>
> Gorry
>
> On 25/07/2019, 08:50, Markku Kojo wrote:
>> Hi Bob, all,
>> 
>> catching up ...
>> 
>> The justification for the logical OR in RFC 3168 is not because TCP only 
>> reacts to one ECN mark per RTT. Instead, it ensures that no congestion 
>> signal is lost (that is MUST in RFC 3168), i.e., CE is delivered to end 
>> hosts for ECN-capable traffic equivalent to drop for non-ECN-capable 
>> traffic (if one fragment for a non-ECN-capable flow gets dropped by an AQM 
>> router, all fragments of the packet get dropped at reassembly).
>> 
>> I'm very concerned if the reassembly behavior is changed as proposed (e.g., 
>> for tunnels), because it makes it impossible for RFC3168-based ("classic") 
>> ECN traffic to follow the leading guidelines of RFC 3168 for fair 
>> co-existence of ECN-capable and non-ECN-capable traffic in the presence of 
>> such tunnels.
>> 
>> Moreover, it begs for justification why two ECN-capable flows (A and B) 
>> that share the same ECN-enebled bottleneck within a tunnel should get 
>> different ECN-marking behavior, when flow A gets its packets fragmented 
>> before the tunnel and flow B within the tunnel but before the common 
>> bottleneck. And fragment sizes for A and B are (roughly) equivalent.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> /Markku
>> 
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>> 
>>> Joe,
>>> 
>>> Following up my email to you in May quoted further down, you made me 
>>> realize that RFC6040 did not
>>> address what to do with ECN during fragmentation and reassembly. So I've 
>>> added the following to
>>> my local copy of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040-update-shim (to be posted later 
>>> today), which recently
>>> went through TSVWG last call, and will imminently be last called on 
>>> various int-area lists, I
>>> believe.
>>> 
>>> These are quite significant updates to outer fragment processing at the 
>>> tunnel egress. But, given
>>> something has to be said, I can't think of a better way (see the original 
>>> quoted email about why
>>> the logical OR of the ECN codepoints as defined in RFC3168 is no longer 
>>> sufficient - and it's no
>>> simpler anyway).
>>> 
>>> 5.  ECN Propagation and Fragmentation/Reassembly
>>>
>>>    The following requirements update RFC6040, which omitted handling of
>>>    the ECN field during fragmentation or reassembly.  These changes
>>>    might alter how many ECN-marked packets are propagated by a tunnel
>>>    that fragments packets, but this would not raise any backward
>>>    compatibility issues:
>>>
>>>    If a tunnel ingress fragments a packet, it MUST set the outer ECN
>>>    field of all the fragments to the same value as it would have set if
>>>    it had not fragmented the packet.
>>>
>>>    As a tunnel egress reassembles sets of outer fragments
>>>    [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] into packets, it SHOULD propagate CE
>>>    markings on the basis that a congestion indication on a packet
>>>    applies to all the octets in the packet.  On average, a tunnel egress
>>>    SHOULD approximately preserve the number of CE-marked and ECT(1)-
>>>    marked octets arriving and leaving (counting the size of inner
>>>    headers, but not encapsulating headers that are being stripped).
>>>    This process proceeds irrespective of the addresses on the inner
>>>    headers.
>>>
>>>    Even if only enough incoming CE-marked octets have arrived for part
>>>    of the departing packet, the next departing packet SHOULD be
>>>    immediately CE-marked.  This ensures that CE-markings are propagated
>>>    immediately, rather than held back waiting for more incoming CE-
>>>    marked octets.  Once there are no outstanding CE-marked octets, if
>>>    only enough incoming ECT(1)-marked octets have arrived for part of
>>>    the departing packet, the next departing packet SHOULD be immediately
>>>    marked ECT(1).
>>>
>>>    For instance, an algorithm for marking departing packets could
>>>    maintain a pair of counters, the first representing the balance of
>>>    arriving CE-marked octets minus departing CE-marked octets and the
>>>    second representing a similar balance of ECT(1)-marked octets.  The
>>>    algorithm:
>>>
>>>    o  adds the size of every CE-marked or ECT(1)-marked packet that
>>>       arrives to the appropriate counter;
>>>
>>>    o  if the CE counter is positive, it CE-marks the next packet to
>>>       depart and subtracts its size from the CE counter;
>>>
>>>    o  if the CE counter is negative but the ECT(1) counter is positive,
>>>       it marks the next packet to depart as ECT(1) and subtracts its
>>>       size from the ECT((1) counter;
>>>
>>>    o  (the previous two steps will often leave a negative remainder in
>>>       the counters, which is deliberate);
>>>
>>>    o  if neither counter is positive, it marks the next packet to depart
>>>       as ECT(0);
>>>
>>>    o  until all the fragments of a packet have arrived, it does not
>>>       commit any updates to the counters so that, if reassembly fails
>>>       and the partly reassembled packet has to be discarded, none of the
>>>       discarded fragments will have updated any of the counters.
>>>
>>>    During reassembly of outer fragments [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels], if
>>>    the ECN fields of the outer headers being reassembled into a single
>>>    packet consist of a mixture of Not-ECT and other ECN codepoints, the
>>>    packet MUST be discarded.
>>>
>>>    A tunnel end-point that claims to support the present specification
>>>    MUST NOT use an approach that results in a significantly different
>>>    ECN-marking outcome to that defined by the "SHOULD" statements
>>>    throughout this section.  "SHOULD" is only used to allow similar
>>>    perhaps more efficient approaches that result in approximately the
>>>    same outcome.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> On 16/05/2019 22:14, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>>>       Joe,
>>>
>>>       Sorry I missed this posting at the time (my mail filters moved both 
>>> cross-postings
>>>       into my int-area box which I check only rarely).
>>> 
>>>
>>>       On 27/04/2019 18:13, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>       Cross-posting to let both communities know:
>>> - it would be useful for these documents to address how fragmentation and 
>>> reassembly
>>> affects these signals
>>> (esp. if reassembling fragments with different ECN values)
>>> 
>>> [BB] This is addressed by the re-framing section in ecn-encap-guidelines, 
>>> altho it doesn't
>>> give examples of what might have caused frame boundary misalignment, so 
>>> fragmentation is
>>> not specifically mentioned. I think I will add an explicit mention of 
>>> fragmentation (if
>>> only so a search finds that section).
>>> 
>>> Actually I've realized that this highlights an inconsistency between the 
>>> advice on ECN and
>>> fragment reassembly in RFC3168 and in ecn-encap-guidelines.:
>>>  *  RFC3168 requires that the ECN marking of a reassembled packet is the 
>>> logical OR of the
>>>     ECN marks on the fragments,
>>>  *  whereas ecn-encap-guidelines recommends marking the same number of 
>>> outgoing as incoming
>>>     octets when reassembling L2 frames or tunnelled packets with different 
>>> boundaries -
>>>     using a simple counter to track the balance.
>>> In fact, it was the review of RFC3168 by me and Jon Crowcroft back in 2001 
>>> that originally
>>> raised the question of how to handle reassembly of ECN-marked fragments.. 
>>> I'll quote a
>>> passage from the review, which I think justifies the recommendation in 
>>> ecn-encap-guidelines
>>> to count marked bytes, rather than use the logical OR of RFC3168:
>>> 
>>> To use the logical OR of the marking of all fragments might be a pragmatic
>>> solution, particularly for congestion control protocols like TCP where one
>>> loss per round trip is treated identically to many. However, it is 
>>> becoming
>>> more common to see large numbers of packets per round trip time as data
>>> rates increase while packet sizes and the speed of light haven't increased
>>> for many years. Therefore it is to be expected that newer congestion
>>> control protocols might take more accurate account of the number of 
>>> packets
>>> marked in a round trip. Hence, the inaccuracy of a logical OR during
>>> re-assembly at the IP layer is best avoided.
>>> 
>>> I'm not too worried about the inaccuracy of using a logical OR, but I 
>>> think it best to
>>> recommend more accurate and no less costly counting. The only 
>>> justification for the logical
>>> OR was that TCP only reacted to one ECN mark per RTT. But that is changing 
>>> now, and the
>>> behaviour of one transport should not be embedded in lower layers anyway.
>>>
>>>       - it would be useful for these documents to consider 
>>> draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels
>>>       (which relates to the above) and its discussion on many of the 
>>> protocols cited
>>> 
>>> I can't find anything in draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels that ought to be cited 
>>> from
>>> ecn-encap-guidelines or rfc6040-update-shim. Did you have something 
>>> specific in mind?
>>> 
>>> I do want to raise a question about the following sentence, which precedes 
>>> the mention of
>>> ECN:
>>>
>>>    There are exceptions to this rule that are explicitly intended to
>>>    relay signals from inside the tunnel to the network outside the
>>>    tunnel, typically relevant only when the tunnel network N and the
>>>    outer network M use the same network.
>>> Was that last word meant to say "network protocol"?
>>> 
>>> Then, if that is what you meant, I would disagree. Many different network 
>>> protocols include
>>> concepts similar to Diffserv and/or ECN (e.g. IEEE802.1p, MPLS and TRILL 
>>> support both,
>>> etc), and there's rarely a reason /not/ to propagate the concept between 
>>> different network
>>> protocols when they encapsulate each other, even tho it's not always 
>>> straightforward to do
>>> so.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>       On Apr 26, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This may be of interest to INT folks who are interested in tunnels and
>>> encapsulations.
>>> 
>>> Comments by the WGLC deadline are encouraged, but comments after the 
>>> deadline
>>> are ok, as they’d have to be dealt with anyway at IETF Last Call.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, --David
>>> 
>>> From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Black, David
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:51 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: [tsvwg] 2nd WGLC on ecn-encap-guidelines and rfc6040-update-shim
>>> drafts, closes 6 May 2019
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>> 
>>> This email announces a 2nd TSVWG Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on two 
>>> drafts:
>>> 
>>> [1] Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that
>>>                              Encapsulate IP
>>>                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-12
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines/
>>> This draft is intended to become a Best Current Practice RFC
>>> 
>>> [2] Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers
>>>                           Separated by a Shim
>>>                  draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-08
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim/
>>> This draft is intended to become a Proposed Standard RFC.
>>> 
>>> This WGLC will run through the end of the day on Monday, May 6, 2019.
>>> 
>>> Comments should be sent to the [e-mail] list, although purely
>>> editorial comments may be sent directly to the author. Please cc: the
>>> WG chairs at [e-mail]  if you would like the chairs to
>>> track such editorial comments as part of the WGLC process.
>>> 
>>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on either draft
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> David, Gorry and Wes
>>> (TSVWG Co-Chairs)
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Int-area mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>>> 
>>> 
>
>