Hi Donald,

I have reviewed the changes and my comments. Please see inline for my feedback. I will remove text not necessary to provide context. It is almost ready now. There are two areas where I think there needs to be some further improvements, DSCPs and TCP encapsulation. But the needed changes are relatively straightforward.

Den 2018-01-31 kl. 06:25, skrev Donald Eastlake:
Hi Magnus,

It has been a while but the just posted version -12 is intended to
resolve your comments except those related to middle boxes. (The TRILL
WG has decided middle boxes will be out of scope for this draft.)

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Donald Eastlake<d3e...@gmail.com>  wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com>  wrote:
Den 2017-06-26 kl. 02:07, skrev Donald Eastlake:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com>  wrote:

Diffserv usage

Section 4.3:

The new text from -12:

   The default TRILL priority and DEI to DSCP mapping, which may be
   configured per TRILL over IP port, is an follows. Note that the DEI
   value does not affect the default mapping and, to provide a
   potentially lower priority service than the default priority 0,
   priority 1 is considered lower priority than 0. So the priority
   sequence from lower to higher priority is 1, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, as
   it is in [802.1Q].

      TRILL Priority  DEI  DSCP Field (Binary/decimal)
      --------------  ---  -----------------------------
                  0   0/1  001000 / 8
                  1   0/1  000010 / 0
                  2   0/1  010000 / 16
                  3   0/1  011000 / 24
                  4   0/1  100000 / 32
                  5   0/1  101000 / 40
                  6   0/1  110000 / 48
                  7   0/1  111000 / 56

   The above all follow the recommended DSCP values from [RFC2474]
   except for the placing of priority 1 below priority 0, as specified
   in [802.1Q], and for the DSCP value of 000010 binary for low effort
   as recommended in [LEphb].

I don't really understand this change. Now you have priority 1 which points to the proposed new mapping for Lower than Best Effort, being the least prioritized. Then priority 0 intended to be more prioritized is CS1 which may still be lower than best effort (thus basically same as prio 1), or end up being receiving a more prioritized PHB than best effort. Why isn't 0 mapped to best effort (000000)? That appears that it would provide a more consistent behaviour.

MTU and Fragmentation

With the changes introduced and the no middlebox applicability it looks like the issues are resolved.

Zero Checksum:

The IPv6 zero checksum section (5.4.2) looks good.

TCP Encapsulation issue

So the TCP encapsulation section (5.6) is significantly improved, but some comments:

"All packets in a particular TCP stream SHOULD use the same DSCP
codepoint or packet re-ordering may occur."



I think that SHOULD is a MUST. You get no benefit from trying to send different packets in a TCP connection with different DSCPs. It will really only result in reordering, and additional retransmissions. Also the TCP stacks Head of line blocking will also not really allow any received payload to be released early. Thus, only downsides and now gain to use different DSCPs for a single connection.

"It is RECOMMEDED that
   at least two TCP connections be provided, for example one for
   priority 6 and 7 traffic and one for priority 0 through 5 taffice, in
   order to insure that urgent control traffic, including control
   traffic related to establishing and maintaining adjacency, is not
   significantly delayed by lower priority traffic."

I think this is fine, there is one potential issue here, but likely not a significant. If the high priority traffic is very sparse, then the TCP connection marked with a higher priority DSCP may have a very small congestion window. So when the high priority traffic is to be sent it will in fact be delayed more by the TCP stacks congestion control than the lower priority that has a larger window established. However, that is only really an issue if the high priority traffic is multiple packets that comes in burst. Also, if there is on path contention the lower priority traffic may still not make it even if sent earlier, so not using a high priority DSCP is not really an option either.

I think the IP/TCP/Trill and TCP header figures are simply non-relevant here. I think they can give the impression that a receiving node can process each TCP packet individually rather than running a full TCP implementation here. What is relevant is the framing format that delimit each Trill packet sent by TCP.

+--------+-------- // ----+ | Length | TRILL packet   |
      +--------+----- // -------+

The above figure is a bit confusing, I assume the intention is to indicate previous Trill packet with framing and the following one. I think you be more explicit about that as an explanation.

         If the
         initial 2 bytes of the TRILL packet are not one of these
         Ethertypes, then the receiver assumes that framing
         synchronization has been lost and MUST close that TCP

Yes, this is very important text. I would recommend that it is moved into its own paragraph rather than hidden in a figure explanation. I am also missing the specification what to do when one have closed the connection. I assume that it is to have either part re-initiate. But, is it the closing party (receiver) that should do this, or the sending part? As TCP connections are bi-directional, but I assume that these are used only unidirectionally, and thus it matters who should establish them in relation to signalling? Congestion Control

Flow and ECMP

Issues resolved in the more limited applicability scope.

NAT and TRILL over IP:

I think it is fine with the WG saying that NATs are out of scope for Trill. However, I really think you need to say this upfront in the document that this specification relies on that there are no NAT in the path between the trill nodes using this specification. And be explicit if there would be NATs then things will not work as intended.


Magnus Westerlund

Media Technologies, Ericsson Research
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto:magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME-kryptografisk signatur

trill mailing list

Reply via email to