Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 17 August 2020 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 C77FB3A108E; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.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 IigGn0R2Ux_q; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (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 7C4DA3A1072; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 07HF1lsq005692; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:01:50 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1597676510; bh=TcTOqinKiJ5/O/A7iN0dfgoLhb09BXb9nFmn/iuk3jk=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PP91V/wQ4HH2YFAM0ulSJsvOzhljYgt1lAvQBg/4O6PUmT6yivQ7fG/qWPwFasr6g IYZfDESFyxBx3CDH22SP+4Wt6z0273dBnog/ttVbU8MftHRs+jHG3ZNVCxnkyQZVQP Xd0YEWOCgdcgM4PZPXDqTjOraTlb2Px9QJxubUo7//Bp8qVYqj+1EJBPLqqw4KIMrj hHDn/Xc8Xfk05guy+9u2BIEwq6QtsLidu7h79GUyP7g6a64JixrplA18Y6NttdSEVw pRc41QiTTL3YRkPqjGakuBdyKrYZEKBeOMQP1pEy6R/U0PeFh1YjqiHp9qL8WRK6IZ tLg+AFBvLGbgQ==
Received: from XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-11.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.113]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 07HF1hYN005624 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:01:43 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:01:42 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:01:42 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
CC: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups
Thread-Index: AdZv/nPAXPbo98BsTRy+/vxuNZBYcwAAtAeAAR1NU+AACiuXIAABUHVFAABQysA=
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:01:42 +0000
Message-ID: <bdcb4792f82e48428ed368a4d0f35969@boeing.com>
References: <af39216c55e5421d933c4220738a8c28@boeing.com> <2EF1FEDD-D25E-4A4E-A2DF-F40F5794CFE7@fugue.com> <MN2PR11MB3565E46AA184CE6BB4171906D85F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>, <258750d2b12c423291bf4a3e3ab715f6@boeing.com> <8E6B4112-7094-4AEF-B4D4-BB39E0C5C6A0@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8E6B4112-7094-4AEF-B4D4-BB39E0C5C6A0@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: E6C4E0EAF0CB7A042F78AE95057A9F770FF08C0839CFDA8F31BC0BC21F95DDFB2000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_bdcb4792f82e48428ed368a4d0f35969boeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 11111111
X-TM-AS-SMTP: 1.0 Y2x0LW1ic291dC0wMi5tYnMuYm9laW5nLm5ldA== RnJlZC5MLlRlbXBsaW5AYm9laW5nLmNvbQ==
X-TM-AS-ERS: 144.115.66.113-127.0.0.32
x-imss-email-tag-status: notag
x-imss-email-tag-ndr: notndr
x-imss-email-tag-format1: unknown
x-imss-email-tag-format2: html
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-9.1.0.1362-8.6.0.1013-25608.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--21.943-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--21.943-10.0-31-10;No--21.943-4.5-31-10;No--21.943-5 .0-31-10;No--21.943-10.0-31-10
X-TM-AS-Result-Xfilter: Match text exemption rules:No; Match text exemption rules:No
X-TMASE-Version: IMSS-9.1.0.1362-8.6.1013-25608.006
X-TMASE-Result: 10--21.943200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: NA0ZKeRbk4W8wYz+pTajLS1gNysqkMBhBaTsDKw4uJsZSUX8zcPGn8V0 QyhMrtsxO7BMOlfyKLQwM/2EFerXjDNY4KfSzWBpXM9RaNLxmh5SHosnxqKdcLRStmZTxM8R3NX 8I7bkynxXwSAPS85a5Eqkiqc7rRQWxt4vQNQ07I5K1zF6btLtOGDLDu7YBQw3VUIE0/jxA/06Un 8YoOv/0mtEzrC9eANpXlcq8zP3Sspl4S+hkZQU4zqlUZ/4FirG0FSb2thdWdeVUcz8XpiS9F3EY 8208YDEOBA7BF91Qmofah0XtuYfoDenGVMBcqCvM4RCRajPk/mzSXeWRuhjQWuIdO1OTCq/GUqO jzOC7IpBpEtB1dOVlrEgH/blGj35j8JGYeMj8MuI6Z3plNzm0uAStmPSrW3SN19PjPJahlJ/7iV TXtdMVVHpIy6wt5UwRBHQqCGy1x4zPuXoXeyLcsAMmDCALMUA0zVLeQmxFs1SZNh1WV6JqELjV7 Jaiy6psp5O052MzLoJKq/MwbHq8XZUDYZdKffPCmZV5HSmSt3iXwiynp/63AxxIOrYW0TsDvc/j 9oMIgVLxCuBTCXaKt+iLZRYSJ006hBVj1hopAhO8CDBpBOgD0KPluOEKT3/0bvPC6RCKPiskKxw lO9Pff5PMwphTQFKo0YGraGLZ0Dyrjn5G06ZpPWSyMFfxH7woRhq4uL6L1hFd2K6RlAKAYvkwJz 527bYqdNJv7rSjgHv/72zC4hJFUtt4xcKCO29ftblt3CCdbyjlFSgXWPWuAi0LLplf+UvghZKmu N2x5scI/pZs+xxLzB+SfZtVtOPAlJWRMAOSfaRk6XtYogiah8pedJuMNL+a9+JVKonO7fsXEtpW EfxJ6sQd9qPXhnJuO6HKAfqmR7It9uc3UW1pI7e8+ghZK+JH2ZuNATtHpktJp0uSK4TYQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/nz0LKO095Sf5u97uVZYoPyULPPQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups
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: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:01:56 -0000

Pascal, I think our discussion is diverging. I think where we differ is you seem to be
assuming a host model for the end system, whereas I am assuming a multi-addressed
mobile node (MN) that does link-local-only on the access network. The OMNI interface
allows the MN to interact with the routing system by signing its RS messages with a
coded LLA that prompts the receiving router to inject a Mobile Network Prefix (MNP)
for the MN into the BGP routing system. But, the MN itself does not participate in BGP.

Again, the only multicast aspects of ND that need managing are Solicited-Node
multicast for NS(AR), All-Nodes multicast for RA and unsolicited NA, and All-Routers
multicast for RS. In each case, the multicasts are serially-unicast to exactly that (very)
small set of nodes that needs to receive them and no others. So, the NBMA multicast
domain can be as large as the number of nodes on the link.

Fred

From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 7:41 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups




Hello Fred


Le 17 août 2020 à 16:09, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> a écrit :

Hi Pascal,

See below for inlines:

From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 2:39 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>; v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups
Hello Fred:

100% agree. If the size of the multicast table is roughly that of the routing table, it looks particularly inefficient to maintain a multicast table for the sole purpose of DAD and lookup. We take great care in hiding that simple truth under the carpet by saying that’s a L2 problem. But it does not seem that L2 has taken the bait, has it.

It depends on the L2. If the L2 is a physical media like a fabric of Ethernet switches then
penetration down to L2 may not be happening. But, if the L2 is a virtual topology that
is manifested by encapsulation (e.g., and overlay) then the point may be moot.

Not sure what you mean.

As it goes, the host does not participate to the encapsulation. This is done at the ingress router that needs to resolve the egress router.

If it is known to the fabric we obtain it from tables that are maintained by the likes of BGP or LISP. Trouble is if not.

If there was a multicast state then we could send the lookup to only the routers that face the SNMA group.

But that would pretty much double the size of our tables, and though it is better, the MLD games still do not match the needs.

So we have to broadcast. Till the hosts implement a better host to router protocol as I described in the text quoted below.





As another case of what you’re describing,  fabrics are optimized to use a routing protocol (e.g., BGP with eVPN) and broadcast is the last resort, but there is no multicast in between. Sadly it is still there, because the fabric is lacking a clear view of what’s there.

Note also that the routing protocol is better suited to announce reachability than to perform DAD.

This is where some help from the host would be needed in place of the useless IGMP games. The host can help the fabric by providing accurate information on the addresses it is effectively using, a sense of duration, a sense of order in movements, and a proof of ownership. This information should be enough to differentiate a case of multihoming / anycast with a movement.


You seem to be assuming that the end system is a host that does SLAAC. I am assuming
an end system model that does link-local-only with unique LLAs where no SLAAC nor
DAD are necessary.


True, though LLA have nothing to do there.

The bottom line is that if an address is globally unique by construction then it does not need DAD. We leverage that in IoT (6LoWPAN).

But you still need to announce the address to the routing system. If your host participâtes to the routing you are all set. We also leverage that in IoT (RPL).

But none of that applies to classical hosts that connect to your WiFi or your campus fabric.

Until the hosts implement something more suited there will be broadcast. This is quite detrimental to the perception of IPv6, even vs. IPv4.

Keep safe,


Thanks – Fred


All the best

Pascal


On Aug 11, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote:
That is more or less the principle for NBMA, yes. But take a conservatively-sized NBMA
link with 1M nodes on the link but only 2-3 of them need to receive the multicast then
serially unicasting seems pretty efficient and does not disturb the vast majority of
nodes that don’t care.