Subject: [mpls] Re: Last Call: 'Label Switching Router Self-Test' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test) (2)

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:51:27 +0300

More comments from Franz Kastenholz - [email-masked]
([email-masked])

1) if i read this right, it is a way for one lsr to ask another
   lsr to test the first lsr's data path -- "can someone tell
   me if i am working ok?". _if_ my interpretation is right
   (and it is monday morning and not all the little gray cells
   are at 100% efficiency yet), it seems that this is a fundamentally
   stupid thing that the ietf should be standardizing, etc.

2) regardless of point 1, it looks like there are various bits of
   processing that have to happen here; but there is no talk
   about metering/prioritizing/etcing this traffic, leaving open
   a potential dos avenue.  the security considerations section
   seems to hint at this (recommending that loopback labels
   be shared among trusted neighbors only).

   aside, this last comment _also_ opens a huge can of worms;
   who is trusted? how do i know? what filtering/etcing is needed
   to make the right things happen? 

f

-----Original Message-----
From: The IESG [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 6:04 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Last Call: 'Label Switching Router Self-Test' to Proposed
Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test) 

The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching
WG
 
to consider the following document:

- 'Label Switching Router Self-Test '
   <draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2006-09-08.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-06.txt

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:48:31 -0400

>    stupid thing that the ietf should be standardizing, etc.

Not at all.

The point of the draft is to allow the control plane of a node to test
if it's dataplane is insync with the control plane.  With large
distributed systems and hot/cool-standby control processors this is
becoming an issue that the SP community is concerned about.

The node under test needs a small amount of help from it's neighbors
just to:

upstream neighbor - reflect a packet back towards the node under test.

downstream neighbor - tell the node under test where the packet's ttl
expired and what the MPLS header looked like at that time.

>    be shared among trusted neighbors only).

The major point here was to require absolute minimal processing on the
part of the neighbors so that the node under test can be self regulating
in the load it has to bear.

This draft extends RFC 4379 which has text on metering.  Didn't think it
was necessary to repeat it here.

>    to make the right things happen? 

There's a separate security thread.  So I'll address this comment there.

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719