Re: [v6ops] Flow Label Load Balancing

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 25 November 2020 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B619D3A1BE7; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:40:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 KC6yqgv_rFZp; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:39:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 7FA513A1BE5; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:39:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ChB711msQz1nsT2; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:39:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1606333197; bh=a0jtMrN6cPnLUIYqiIhsA6vO3/yEn3HPNFwYzRC7LOE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=VeMclSfdHXMmXzVzafNvQ1GUZujsxm+RWZMvXNyXHLl9XfMOkIDsB3OyZBVY80VnE 7YyREH5qS4hSagNwa1vvv2r+LQOmbHKgwisiszb8qhaLm7XyoEvoYYYs+CrtRt7WZ8 AAhQCUaAAqeOnQCz1hS8pwZuJMngUDJ0lWp9WH0U=
X-Quarantine-ID: <jSZ3yq7eRnCd>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ChB704hsQz1nsWT; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:39:56 -0800 (PST)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <CAEGSd=DY8t8Skor+b6LSopzecoUUzUZhti9s0kdooLZGxPEt+w@mail.gmail.com> <d29042a7-742b-a445-cf60-2773e5515ae5@gont.com.ar> <CALx6S37+1duoNGR3dZWesHsZvx15kX9wCWufPMh=esvMaSMF_g@mail.gmail.com> <63e7aad3-7094-7492-dbe4-3eefb5236de3@gont.com.ar> <CALx6S37t4jump6S-R5_xdo5DF+RnHtT4rU5-RuiC-2GQ0PXxkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <239c4b67-1d9a-da00-7bb0-52019be1b7c1@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:39:55 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37t4jump6S-R5_xdo5DF+RnHtT4rU5-RuiC-2GQ0PXxkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/PJIj1igMUF_D7_FeYeAq-GscBcs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flow Label Load Balancing
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 19:40:02 -0000

This kind of thing is why, as I understand it, MPTCP has discovery 
mechanisms ot know if both sides use it, and can select alternative 
addresses for communication.

Trying to guess flow labels that might avoid a problem because it might 
be an ECMP problem, is just flailing about.  Not a good design for 
operational protocols.

And in general, designing protocols around "I know exactly what is going 
on"  (the requirement for what you describe that goes well beyond just 
"limited domains") is also a recipe for failure.

The Flow Label RFCs are actually very explicit that a flow label is 
supposed to be stable for the life of the flow.  Otherwise, it isn't a 
flow label.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/25/2020 2:35 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Hi Fernando, comments in line...
> 
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:13 AM Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Tom,
>>
>> On 24/11/20 16:43, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> [....]
>>> Modulating the flow label is a means to affect the routing of packets
>>> through the network that uses flow labels as input to the ECMP hash.
>>
>> What's the point?
>>
>> 1) You cannot tell *if* the FL is being used.
>>
> Generally true, but in a limited domain this information could be
> discerned. I'd note that it's also generally true that we don't know
> if there is a load balancer or stateful firewall in the path that
> requires consistent routing, but in a limited domain we could know
> that also.
> 
>> 2) Changing the FL does not necessarily mean that packets will employ a
>> different link.
> 
> It's an opportunistic mechanism. If a connection is failing and we get
> a better path that fixes it by simply changing the flow label then
> what's the harm?
> 
>>
>> 3) If the network is failing, shouldn't you handle this via routing?
>>
> Sure, but then that requires an out of band feedback loop from a TCP
> implementation to the network infrastructure to indicate there is a
> problem and then the network needs to respond. That's significant
> infrastructure and higher reaction time than doing something in TCP
> and IP. Think of modulating the flow label is an inexpensive form of
> source routing within a limited domain that doesn't need any
> infrastructure or heavyweight protocols or something like segment
> routing.
> 
>>
>>
>>> The basic idea is that the flow label associated with a connection is
>>> randomly changed when the stack observes that the connection is
>>> failing (e.g. and an RTO). There is nothing in the specs that prevents
>>> this since the source is at liberty to set the flow label as it sees
>>> fit.
>>
>> The FL is expected to remain constant for the life of a flow. A
>> retransmitted packet is part of the same flow as the
>> originally-transmitted packet. So this seems to be contradicting the
>> very specification of the FL.
>>
>> For instance, If a RTO for a flow causes the FL to change, then one may
>> possibly argue that the FL is not naming/labeling what is said/expected
>> to be anming/labeling.
> 
> Specifically, RFC6437 states:
> 
> "It is therefore RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow label
> by setting the flow label field for all packets of a given flow to the
> same value chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform
> distribution."
> 
> So that is clearly a just recommendation, and not a requirement (and
> definitely not a MUST). Furthermore, RFC6437 states:
> 
> "A forwarding node MUST either leave a non-zero flow label value
> unchanged or change it only for compelling operational security
> reasons as described in Section 6.1."
> 
> So there's no guarantee in the protocol specs that flow labels are
> consistent for the life of the connection, which means that the
> network cannot assume that and thus it would be incorrect if the
> network tried to enforce flow label consistency as a protocol
> requirement. As I said, it is prudent to try to be consistent with
> flow labels and the default behavior in Linux should be changed,
> however I do not believe there's a valid claim of non-conformance that
> motivates removal of the feature that is already deployed.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>> The feature is useful in large datacenter networks, like
>>> pparently Facebook where the patches originate, since information
>>> discerned by TCP can opportunistically be applied to route selection.
>>> The practical issue is that there are stateful devices like firewalls
>>> that require consistent routing in the network in which case changing
>>> the flow label can confuse them. As I mentioned, the original intent
>>> was that the flow label randomization feature should be opt-in instead
>>> of on by default.
>>
>> So... where is the "source" of the packet that would be "modulating" the FL?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Fernando Gont
>> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
>> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
>>
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>