From: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@freebsd.org>
To: mleitner@redhat.com
Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
"linux-sctp @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: add SPP_PLPMTUD_ENABLE/DISABLE flag for spp_flags
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 01:16:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E9808487-862F-42DE-9A62-BFC182CE603C@freebsd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALnP8ZZ6k25kL+hZfiCNXEXffHH=jyUb4SYDtuE3oG7_Kp6asw@mail.gmail.com>
> On 20. May 2021, at 00:44, mleitner@redhat.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 02:44:20PM -0400, Xin Long wrote:
>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:15 PM Michael Tuexen <tuexen@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19. May 2021, at 18:18, Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:33 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 1:38 PM Michael Tuexen <tuexen@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18. May 2021, at 18:43, Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, Michael,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're implementing RFC8899 (PLPMTUD) on Linux SCTP recently,
>>>>>>> and to make this be controlled by setsockopt with
>>>>>>> SCTP_PEER_ADDR_PARAMS, as in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6458#section-8.1.12:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we need another two flags to add for spp_flags:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SPP_PLPMTUD_ENABLE
>>>>>>> SPP_PLPMTUD_DISABLE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think it makes sense? if yes, does the RFC6458 need to update?
>>>>>>> if not, do you have a better suggestion for it?
>>>>>> It is great new that you want to implement RFC 8899. I plan to do the
>>>>>> same for the FreeBSD stack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my view, RFC 8899 is the right way to implement PMTU discovery.
>>>>>> So I will just use the SPP_PMTUD_ENABLE and SPP_PMTUD_DISABLE. I don't
>>>>>> think that the user needs to control which method is used.
>>>>>> I you want to support multiple versions, I would make that
>>>>>> controllable via a sysctl variable. But I think for FreeBSD, support
>>>>>> for RFC 8899 will be the only way of doing PMTU discovery. There
>>>>>> might be multiple choices for details like how to do the searching,
>>>>>> how long to wait for some events. These will be controllable via
>>>>>> sysctl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in my view, there is no need to extend the socket API. What do you think?
>>>> I just noticed that with multiple versions supported, and without extending
>>>> this API, all applications will have to use the same version as it's
>>>> controlled by
>>>> sysctl. And when switching to another version by sysctl, all
>>>> applications will be
>>>> affected and have to do the switch. that seems not nice.
>>> That is true, but an application can not expect any specific behaviour
>>> right now when they are not disabling PMTUD.
>>>
>>> What about adding a sysctl variable, which defines the default
>>> algorithm and a socket option, which allows to get and set
>>> the algorithm being used.
>> yes, that's also what I'm thinking.
>
> +1
>
>> sysctl is always used for the default value for future sockets.
>> and the socket option should be added for a socket/asoc's setting.
>
> Speaking of inheritance, it should also use the SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC /
> SCTP_CURRENT_ASSOC / SCTP_ALL_ASSOC mechanism. Like
> SCTP_PEER_ADDR_PARAMS, for example.
Yepp.
>
> The system can provide defaults but if the application requires
> something, it should have a good way of requesting it.
>
> Speaking of SCTP_PEER_ADDR_PARAMS, maybe reuse spp_pathmtu field?
> As in, if SPP_PMTUD_ENABLE is enabled, spp_pathmtu of "1" or "2" bytes
> doesn't make sense, and it could mean the algorithm used. Thing is,
> the field is currently ignored, and it could lead to some unexpected
> behavior change. It's probably safer to just add another sockopt, but
> wanted to share the idea anyway.
I leave it completely up to you what you implement in Linux. But I
would prefer to use a separate socket option instead of overloading
an existing one.
Best regards
Michael
>
>>
>> SCTP_PTMUD_METHOD?
>
> s/PTMUD/PMTUD/ :-)
>
>> 0: PTB one
>> 1. PLPMTUD
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>> OK, that makes sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing I want to know your opinion on is: do you think the HB
>>>>> should be created
>>>>> separately for PLPMTUD probe, instead of reusing the old HB that
>>>>> checks the link connectivity?
>>>>> As the HB for PLPMTUD probe might get lost, which we don't want to
>>>>> affect the link's
>>>>> connectivity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-20 11:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-18 16:43 add SPP_PLPMTUD_ENABLE/DISABLE flag for spp_flags Xin Long
2021-05-18 17:38 ` Michael Tuexen
2021-05-18 18:33 ` Xin Long
2021-05-18 19:19 ` Michael Tuexen
2021-05-19 22:24 ` mleitner
2021-05-20 2:05 ` Xin Long
2021-05-20 7:06 ` tuexen
2021-05-20 15:13 ` Xin Long
2021-05-19 16:18 ` Xin Long
2021-05-19 18:15 ` Michael Tuexen
2021-05-19 18:44 ` Xin Long
2021-05-19 22:44 ` mleitner
2021-05-19 23:16 ` Michael Tuexen [this message]
2021-05-20 0:45 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2021-05-20 6:59 ` tuexen
2021-05-20 19:27 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2021-05-19 23:10 ` Michael Tuexen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E9808487-862F-42DE-9A62-BFC182CE603C@freebsd.org \
--to=tuexen@freebsd.org \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
--cc=mleitner@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).