Fwd: Re: Fwd: Summary of proposed changes to draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Wed, 01 December 2010 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FC73A6801 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:58:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.331
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.268, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VLUJsc8kDqdG for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gy0-f194.google.com (mail-gy0-f194.google.com [209.85.160.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 794803A672F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gyd8 with SMTP id 8so4719426gyd.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:59:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:x-enigmail-version:openpgp :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qDGGHRX2pfiVR7yu6+5BZXB/9G7g3rS7IqSVz3U2IUI=; b=BX3GFMjK8yDnMn9SgQfzDmT2dhjCZetdjCvoD3YmGTZ7dWp6TsF8MkWYj5/ELLzVHX cS+EC6Re+2ipb70MOPJZzo/ARZOdb/eSPVdJVnUezzf6Hu4Gw8lWK9q1QRhuhNQ6naf5 5vf38adSAYnG+hTapVffdmlypZhD+tiNG8Liw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=tdW7C+Nqw6WK5igFMNRxuKJt2A1TJRgoCn0+gb/NkLi0G5GZKTt9No2piuSmgnwdua qsVD+haoCjL2qqyFDBVUOdLIwCnwoU3wFzqzcp8ZomrShjG5jhiwB1caj2vhCz7AOLyq MEW5ziY62zPrPlO0N2UI+EXDwd5p04xGXSFrs=
Received: by 10.90.25.13 with SMTP id 13mr142971agy.33.1291244373538; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:59:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.3] (92-129-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.129.92]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b26sm481562anb.13.2010.12.01.14.59.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:59:32 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF6D34C.8070703@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:59:24 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Summary of proposed changes to draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 01 Dec 2010 22:58:20 -0000

Folks,

FYI, feedback by Andrew Yourtchenko.

FWIW, Dan Wing and Scott Bradner agreed with my notes, too (off-list).

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Fernando




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Summary of proposed changes to
draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:14:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>

Hi Fernando,

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Fernando Gont wrote:

> Hi, Andrew,
>
> BTW, interested in your comments -- if you have any.

thanks for the opportunity! Inline below, nothing major...

cheers,
andrew

>
> Thanks!
>
> Kind regards,
> Fernando
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Summary of proposed changes to draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:56:01 -0300
> From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
> To: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> CC: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>om>,  "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk"
> <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>uk>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>om>,
> Antonio.DeSimone@jhuapl.edu,  "Mahesh Jethanandani (mahesh)"
> <mahesh@cisco.com>
>
> Folks,
>
> I plan to produce a revision of the aforementioned I-D soon. These are
> the changes that have so far been proposed to the current I-D, and my
> read of where consensus seems to be.
>
> Please respond to each of these:
>
> 1) Do *not* update the "SHOULD NOT generate ICMP SQ" in RFC 1812 to
> "MUST NOT generate ICMP SQ".
>
> My read of the comments received so far is that the current "SHOULD NOT
> generate ICMP SQ" text in RFC 1812 is fine "as is", as generating ICMP
> SQ does not raise interoperability problems.
>

agree with this.

> (although I guess some might argue that since ICMP SQ consumes
> bandwidth, this might exacerbate congestion?)

I suppose they are rate-limited, so this is a bit far-fetched scenario
imho :-)

>
>
> 2) Update the text in RFC 1812 that states "A router MAY ignore any ICMP
> Source Quench messages it receives".
>
> The resulting text would s/MAY/SHOULD/. This would align the
> requirements for routers with the requirements for hosts (of ignoring
> ICMP SQs)

I think from the practical standpoint it would not matter much, so I am
in "weak
agreement" on this one.

>
>
> 3) Update the text in RFC 1122 that states "If a Source Quench message
> is received, the IP layer MUST report it to the transport layer (or ICMP
> processing)."
>
> The resulting text would read: "If a Source Quench message is received,
> the IP layer MAY silently discard it.

+1.

>
>
> 4) Update the security considerations section noting that most host
> implementation currently ignore ICMP SQ (as noted in RFC 5927), and
> mention that they could be filtered at firewalls if deemed necessary (no
> normative language here, though)
>

+1.

>
> 5) Have this document obsolete RFC 1016 (Prue, W., and J. Postel, "The
> Source Quench Introduced Delay (SQuID)")
>
> So far I have received one positive comment about this one (off-list).
> More comments needed/wanted.
>

quote from RFC1016: "This is an "crazy idea paper" and discussion is
essential."

As such I don't think it is worth obsoleting - as far as I see it does
not have
any status at all.

>
> 6) Note that ICMPv6 didn't bother to specify an IPv6 version of ICMP SQ
> (this is just an informational note)

makes sense.

cheers,
andrew

>
> Thanks!
>
> Kind regards,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
>
>
>
>