Thank you, Alvaro. We will address other comments in later versions.
Best Regards, Shuping 发件人: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> 发送时间: 2024年9月13日 20:23 收件人: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshup...@huawei.com>; draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-pol...@ietf.org 抄送: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> 主题: Re: Updates made on draft-ietf-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-01 RE: Chair Review of draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-03 Hi Shuping! I looked at the diffs and the changes look good to me. Thanks for addressing my comments. Alvaro. On September 12, 2024 at 9:56:11 PM, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) (pengshup...@huawei.com<mailto:pengshup...@huawei.com>) wrote: Hi Alvaro, folks, Many thanks to the Chair's such thorough reviews! Please find in line starting with Shuping>. We also updated the draft accordingly. Please let us know if you have any further comments. HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-pmtu-sr-policy Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-01 Thank you! Best Regards, Shuping -----Original Message----- From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 2:03 AM To: draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-pol...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-pol...@ietf.org> Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Subject: Chair Review of draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-03 Dear authors: As part of the adoption call I have comments related to this draft. Please see details in-line. Thanks! Alvaro. [Line numbers from idnits.] ... 137 3. Terminology 139 Link MTU: As per [RFC4821], the Maximum Transmission Unit, i.e., 140 maximum IP packet size in bytes, that can be conveyed in one piece 141 over a link. This includes the IP header, but excludes link layer 142 headers and other framing that is not part of IP or the IP 143 payload. In case of MPLS, it also includes the label stack and in 144 case of IPv6, it includes IPv6 extension headers (including SRH). [major] rfc4821's definition of "Link MTU" was Updated by rfc8899 (Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for Datagram Transports). If referring to that definition, please use the updated reference. Also, please don't repeat the definition (unless doing so in quotations) to avoid possibly getting out of sync. Shuping> The RFC is updated to RFC8899. The definition related to the IP part is changed accordingly. [major] The definition in rfc4821/rfc8899 refers to IP networks, not MPLS networks. I looked and found a definition in rfc3988 (MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP), an Experimental RFC. §3/rfc3032 (MPLS Label Stack Encoding) covers "Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery", but doesn't have a definition for Link MTU. Shuping> Yes, it is true. So we add the cases of MPLS and IPv6 as well. 146 Path MTU, or PMTU: The minimum link MTU of all the links in a path 147 between a source node and a destination node. In the scope of 148 this document, this is also called SR-PMTU for the SR paths and 149 policies. Note that the link MTU takes the SR overhead (label 150 stack or SRH) into consideration. [major] This definition matches the one in rfc4821. Same comment as above about the Update in rfc8899 and the definition by reference. Shuping> The RFC is updated to RFC8899. It simply states "See RFC8899". After this, I kept the following sentence "In the scope of this document..." to state the related part of this draft. [minor] "Note that the link MTU takes the SR overhead (label stack or SRH) into consideration." This sentence seems unnecessary as Link MTU was defined above. Also, even though this is the only place where "SR overhead" is used, it may be worth defining it as a term for this document. Shuping> Ok, I moved the SR overhead as a separate term. " SR overhead: The SR-MPLS label stack or SRH. The link MTU takes the SR overhead into consideration." 152 4. SR-PMTU Definition for SR Policy 154 Segment Routing policy architecture is specified in [RFC9256]. An SR 155 Policy is associated with one or more candidate paths. A candidate 156 path is selected when it is valid and it is determined to be the best 157 path of the SR Policy. The selected path is referred to as the 158 "active path" of the SR policy. A candidate path is either dynamic, 159 explicit, or composite. The related concepts with the SR-PMTU 160 definition in this document are listed as follows. [nit] s/Segment Routing policy architecture/The Segment Routing policy architecture Shuping> Added. [minor] The second and third sentences ("A candidate path is selected..."active path" of the SR policy.") are a word-by-word copy of text in rfc9256. Given that "active path" is only used here and in §4.3 (where the same text is copied), it seems that you don't need to copy these sentences -- the reference to rfc9256 should be enough. Shuping> Sure, these two sentences are removed and keep the reference RFC9256. 162 An explicit/dynamic candidate path is expressed as a Segment-List or 163 a set of Segment-Lists directly or by computation. If a candidate 164 path is associated with a set of Segment-Lists, each Segment-List is 165 associated with weight for weighted load balancing. The default 166 weight is 1. 168 A composite candidate path acts as a container for grouping SR 169 Policies. The composite candidate path construct enables the 170 combination of SR Policies, each with explicit candidate paths and/or 171 dynamic candidate paths with potentially different optimization 172 objectives and constraints, for load-balanced steering of packet 173 flows over its constituent SR Policies [RFC9256]. [minor] These two paragraphs are the same as in §2.2/rfc9256. Does the text need to be copied here? Even though the previous paragraph said that "related concepts with the SR-PMTU definition", that is not the case. Shuping> These two paragraphs aim to explain the concepts of " An explicit/dynamic candidate path " and " A composite candidate path ". The first paragraph is not exactly the same as RFC9256. So the first paragraph can be kept. The second paragraph is indeed the same, where the reference to RFC9256 is also added. I have changed the second paragraph as " A composite candidate path is defined in RFC9256." 175 4.1. SR-PMTU of a Segment List 177 A Segment-List represents a specific source-routed path to send 178 traffic from the headend to the endpoint of the corresponding SR 179 policy [RFC9256]. The SR-PMTU of a segment list is defined as the 180 minimum link MTU of all the links in a path between a source node and 181 a destination node. Refer Section 5.2 for specific handling for 182 Node, Adjacency and Binding SID (as well as their combinations) [nit] s/link MTU/Link MTU/g To refer to the definition. Shuping>Changed. [nit] s/Refer Section 5.2/Refer to Section 5.2 Shuping>Changed. 184 4.2. SR-PMTU of a Candidate Path ... 196 In the case of a composite candidate path, then the SR-PMTU of the 197 composite candidate path is defined as the minimum SR-PMTU of all the 198 constituent SR Policies of this composite candidate path. The SR- 199 PMTU of each SR Policy is defined in Section 4.3. [nit] s/In the case of a composite candidate path, then the SR-PMTU of the composite candidate path is defined as the minimum SR-PMTU of all the constituent SR Policies of this composite candidate path./In the case of a composite candidate path, then the SR-PMTU is defined as the minimum SR-PMTU of all the constituent SR Policies. Shuping>Changed. ... 239 5.1. Link MTU Collection 241 SR-PMTU is defined as the minimum link MTU of all the links in a path 242 between a source node and a destination node. The link MTU needs to 243 be first collected. The link MTU can be collected through various 244 protocols such as IGP [I-D.hu-lsr-igp-path-mtu] and BGP-LS 245 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-link-mtu], etc. [nit] The definition from §4.1 is repeated here. The problem with repeating normative text (or any text) is that it may fall out of sync. A better solution is to reference it. Suggestion> The SR-PMTU is defined in function of the Link MTU (Section 4.1). The Link MTU can be collected through various mechanisms such as the ones defined in [I-D.hu-lsr-igp-path-mtu] and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-link-mtu]. Shuping>Changed as suggested, thank you. 247 5.2. SR-PMTU Computation 249 The collected link MTU of all the related links are sent to the 250 network controller where the SR-PMTU is computed. Depending upon the 251 path type, the computation methods are different, which are described 252 in the following subsections. [major] Figure 1 and §5.1 imply that the collection can be done "in the network": using an IGP and collecting the information at the headend. But the description above only talks about using a controller. Either the general framework, the examples in §5.1, or this section need to be updated. Is using a controller the only valid place to compute the SR-PMTU? Shuping> " or the headend " is added into the sentence, so it is like "The collected link MTU of all the related links are sent to the network controller or the headend where the SR-PMTU is computed." 254 5.2.1. Loose TE Path 256 In a loose TE path [RFC7855], only Node SIDs are used along the path. 257 Between two adjacent Node SIDs, generally, there are equal-cost 258 multipaths (ECMP). The SR-PMTU of the loose TE path is computed by 259 finding out the minimum SR-PMTU of all the ECMPs between two adjacent 260 Node SIDs along the loose TE path. [] It's sad that none of the SR documents talk about loose and strict paths. :-( The use of the SR-PMTU is not limited to TE applications. Reading into §3.3/rfc7855, the TE requirements refer explicitly to loose and strict route options...so I think we can safely use "loose/strict path" (no TE). Shuping> "TE" is removed. [minor] s/Node SID/Node-SID/g [rfc8402] Shuping>Changed [minor] s/finding out/finding/g Shuping>Changed 262 Note that an implementation could maintain the SR-PMTU value 263 associated with Node SIDs at the time of best path computation. The 264 details of which are out of the scope of this document. [?] I don't know what you mean by "an implementation could maintain". Shuping> I have removed the paragraph. 266 5.2.2. Strict TE Path 268 In a strict TE path [RFC7855], only Adj SIDs are used along the path. 269 Since the link MTU of all the links being indicated by the Adj SIDs 270 of the strict TE path are known to the network controller, the SR- 271 PMTU of the strict SR-TE path is computed by finding out the minimum 272 link MTU of all the links in the strict SR-TE path between its source 273 node and destination node. [minor] s/Adj SID/Adj-SID/g [rfc8402] Shuping>Changed 275 5.2.3. Mixed Path 277 In a mixed path, both Node SIDs and Adj SIDs are used along the path. 278 The PMTU of the mixed TE path is computed by finding out the minimum 279 value of all the ECMPs between two adjacent Node SIDs and the link 280 MTU of all the links indicated by the Adj SIDs. [major] s/minimum value of all the ECMPs/minimum SR-PMTU of all the ECMPs Shuping>Changed 282 5.2.4. Binding Path 284 The Binding SID (BSID) [RFC8402] is bound to an SR Policy, 285 instantiation of which may involve a list of SIDs. The SR-PMTU of 286 the binding path is the same as that of an SR Policy as specified in 287 the above section modulo that it also includes the encapsulation 288 overhead associated with it (i.e. in case of SR-MPLS, the additional 289 label stack pushed in case of SR-MPLS and the outer IPv6 header with 290 its own SRH in case of SRv6). This is done to make sure the headend 291 of the SR path that includes a BSID is able to compute the SR-PMTU 292 correctly by taking the correct SR-PMTU of the binding path into 293 consideration along with other SIDs in the SR path. [nit] s/in case of SR-MPLS, the additional/the additional Shuping>Changed 295 5.2.5. TI-LFA 297 Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route (TI-LFA) 298 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], aimed at providing 299 protection of node and adjacency segments within the SR framework. 300 The repair path is to pre-compute SPT_new(R,X) for each destination, 301 that is, the Shortest Path Tree rooted at node R in the state of the 302 network after the resource X has failed. An implementation is free 303 to use any local optimization to provide smaller SID lists by 304 combining Node SIDs and Adjacency SIDs. In addition, the usage of 305 Node-SIDs allows to maximize ECMPs over the repair path. Note that 306 while the PMTU of repair path might be different from the original 307 path, which could lead to fragmentation while the repair path is in 308 use. When the controller has computed the new path, its new PMTU 309 would be updated to the headend. [nit] s/while the PMTU of/the PMTU of Shuping>Changed [] "...which could lead to fragmentation while the repair path is in use. When the controller has computed the new path, its new PMTU would be updated to the headend." This sounds counter to the motivation (§1.1): "avoid fragmentation" and "When fragmentation is unavoidable, the ability to do it correctly at the headend." When the repair path is in use neither goals are met. Shuping> The quoted text is about when PMTU calculation does not take repair paths into consideration, or when the repair paths are calculated without considering the original PMTU. This paragraph is changed as " Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route (TI-LFA) [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], aims to provide protection for node and adjacency segments within the SR framework. The PMTU of the repair path might be different from the original path's, which could lead to fragmentation while the repair path is in use." 311 Note that it is possible for the headend implementation to take an 312 FRR overhead into consideration when determining if fragmentation 313 would be needed for the SR Path with TI-LFA enabled. If this is 314 used, an implementation SHOULD allow the value to be configured by an 315 operator. [major] "SHOULD allow the value to be configured" Which value? In other cases the information seems to be collected from the path, not manually configured. Why is this change needed? Why is the ability to configure not required? Or is the configuration beyond the collection? Shuping> This paragraph is changed as " To avoid fragmentation, it is possible for the headend (or controller) to consider the FRR overhead when computing the SR-PMTU of the original path." 317 5.2.6. Others 319 All other types of path can be considered here in future updates. [] This section is superfluous. Shuping> Has been removed. 321 5.3. SR-PMTU Enforcement ... 349 When there are multiple paths that can be selected, the one with the 350 highest SR-PMTU will be enforced in order to avoid fragmentation on 351 the headend. [minor] s/multiple paths that can be selected, the one with the highest SR-PMTU will be enforced/... used Shuping> Changed. ... 356 5.4. Handling behaviors on the headend 358 After the SR-PMTU is computed and enforced on the headend, the 359 headend is going to perform the handling behaviors such as 360 encapsulation, fragmentation, etc. Note that this behavior is 361 similar to the existing behavior of MPLS and IPv6 dataplane. [] Enforcing the SR-PMTU already implies fragmentation. Suggestion> After the SR-PMTU is computed, the headend performs the handling behaviors such as encapsulation and fragmentation, if needed. Note that this behavior is similar to the existing behaviors of MPLS and IPv6 dataplane. Shuping> Updated, thank you! 363 5.4.1. SR-PMTU Constraints and Optimization 365 Generally, considering its services being carried, the operators set 366 an SR-PMTU limit aiming for a proper path selection that fulfills 367 packet size requirements hence avoiding fragmentation. Furthermore, 368 the encapsulation on the headend will introduce the overhead on top 369 of the packet to be encapsulated. Generally, the encapsulation 370 overhead has to be estimated according to the possible path hops and 371 sometimes the repair paths. Therefore, the SR-PMTU constraint is set 372 considering both the carried services and the encapsulation overhead. [nit] s/considering its services being carried/considering the services being carried Shuping> Changed. [] "the operators set an SR-PMTU limit" In §5.1 the collection is implied to be done through network mechanisms (IGP, BGP-LS, etc.). Perhaps include the possibility of manual configuration. The text should be updated to reflect the in-network collection. For example, an IGP is going to report the MTU on an interface without knowledge of the services. Shuping> As above suggested, this paragraph is further changed to " The SR-PMTU of a segment list is defined as the minimum link MTU of all the links in a path, see Section 4.1. The Link MTU can be collected in network through various mechanisms such as the ones defined in [I-D.hu-lsr-igp-path-mtu] and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-link-mtu] without the knowledge of the services." 374 When SR-PMTU-based path optimization is done, PCE will select the 375 path with the highest SR-PMTU among all the possible paths. 377 Even if the SR-PMTU is not considered by the PCE at the time of path 378 computation, the computed SR-PMTU is useful at the headend for the 379 reasons already stated in Section 1.1. 381 Once the SR-PMTU constraint is set on the headend, it is supposed to 382 be the lowest bound of the SR-PMTUs of all the paths being computed 383 locally or enforced by the controller in order to avoid 384 fragmentation. [] The paragraph above says that the "lowest bound of the SR-PMTUs" is used, but two paragraphs above it says that the "PCE will select the path with the highest SR-PMTU". What's the difference between the "SR-PMTU constraint" and the SR-PMTU of the SR policy? I know I'm missing something, I just don't know what it is. Is the "SR-PMTU limit" mentioned in the first paragraph of this section the same as the "SR-PMTU constraint"? Shuping> SR-PMTU constraint is like a hop-limit or delay constraint (i.e. during path computation make sure this limit is not crossed) whereas SR-PMTU is the actual value. The limit and constraint are the same things and perhaps we could use constraint. In the first paragraph, the "SR-PMTU limit" is changed to "SR-PMTU constraint". 386 5.4.2. Fragmentation processing 388 If the SR-PMTU of all the paths being computed locally or enforced by 389 the controller is smaller than the SR-PMTU constraint set on the 390 headend, the fragmentation will have to be handled. If fragmentation 391 is not possible, the headend could generate the ICMP messages to 392 notify the traffic source. [major] "the headend could generate the ICMP messages" Please reference the ICMP RFC. Shuping> RFC4443 is added. 394 Over this selected path, on the headend, the packets are fragmented 395 in order to guarantee the size of the encapsulated packets is smaller 396 than the PMTU of the selected path. [] This paragraph seems to say the same thing as the previous one. Shuping> This paragraph is meant to say after the path is selected, and the fragmentation actions over this selected path ... 406 7. Security Considerations 408 [RFC9256] specifies in detail the SR Policy construct (introduced 409 [RFC8402]) and its security consideration. The additional SR-MTU 410 attribute information can be sensitive in some deployments and could 411 be used to influence SR path setup and selection with adverse effect. 412 The protocol extensions that include SR-PMTU need to take this into 413 consideration. This document does not define any new protocol 414 extensions and thus does not introduce any further security 415 considerations. [nit] s/introduced [RFC8402]/introduced in [RFC8402] Shuping> Changed. [nit] s/security consideration/security considerations Shuping> Changed. ... 474 10.2. Informative References 476 [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU 477 Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, 478 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>. [major] This reference should be Normative because the terminology comes from it. Look at other related comments. Shuping> Now RFC4821 has been removed and changed to RFC8899 according to the suggestions above. Now the RFC8899 has been moved to the Normative part. ... 486 [RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., 487 "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, 488 DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, 489 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>. [major] This reference should be Normative. Shuping> moved. ... 505 [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu] 506 Li, C., Zhu, Y., El Sawaf, A., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing 507 Path MTU in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- 508 ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-08, 19 October 2023, 509 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-sr- 510 policy-path-mtu-08>. [major] This reference should be Normative because it is where the Path MTU is added to the SR Policy. Shuping> The IDR document is only talking about SR Policy Safi NLRI though they use the SR Policy structure. If some text related to that is needed, it is better to add this in this document rather than a normative reference. [EoR-03] Best regards, Shuping
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
