[bess] Comment at the mic

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 26 July 2019 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1551D120281 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 JfDdnN2sqG5P for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68D591202BD for <bess@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id a27so38380663qkk.5 for <bess@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hLCchrK1ED+Oa9Ey3aBqXwEaZs6aMrCB9boPTByDHig=; b=FzqyOwRgPCjMPZkcmSKlqX5A50b0BCGiEBRXoPiHVvmSCXwJI7kb48dbvAEh3PM/ty cHgtm8x1vOeAi3ffLUevCflmfSTHOOHT3zErgUv1fZULeN86IliyrQCvG+PmRvCsmrBm 0zdsExWcl6eqVRm8tN9Z0wybH9Istew6GaoQ38KUBMG5+SZx7usGiN7Abj521DzJkroM gl9B66BqSMUa537fDmYO8+cAqlHpnL/TIopeOLsK46EG4LSwGZuTY3cmC8LK0+jYSIK5 UdB2a5zcyjy2D9xiryQLpJ57UwKdekKkXZtFDWDkJl661F0K9PVSv72CbJWAOzF+yDsk Ek5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hLCchrK1ED+Oa9Ey3aBqXwEaZs6aMrCB9boPTByDHig=; b=kY1EO/Y+UQPdQ4UOS52kZsR+UD0zAtGdjhDVYCIu3ymiexkw0W3Mo0KBQEOm4KJcey YQwVtiiQALVt1Gavf3LMA3iK8tZKCPMP32isfEETFynUnkF71l6eViHOYj9x61kSblwg DU6aIOhHBIBAyGWjSiyz2xsndlowVYRy/UYUGxz0BtH3nw1kVIp8qUriptLvBFZKDg6t AdsCU4mGHdBtGLV5BCQdT8yYOdSlVE6YYA8PtgTI45WDltny/SGXNz6waIFUpM1oV7Bu wQrseBpHsWFVZKw1EiwmbGuebmMxocnTFbVkdbZFYiVABJ83bbEiYOBglwO3FLW3Uq/s lPTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVj9x0SjNHgeyEv2T0VAIcnnIpDQKxqLECBN1S8adRShkqRVLKw gfVSn5+dPdR6vHfEtT2EQi6+n9azooC1z5m3On3VLA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx1RH/K3NQcJM54Z5u2sP4X5lJZxzv4hOt5u7V+Sja+32he2QdWhai/aDT8n6tlvyThlEnEJvFf8v0zhxyKGuA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1285:: with SMTP id w5mr57555564qki.302.1564124978261; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:09:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHQGm0wPf809Q4UCPmrB5UtsV3b-yiZ-SB=B1zKt++nTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
Cc: bess@ietf.org, Srihari Sangli <ssangli@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b6c792058e9039c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/0nKcHIbLlPG_a3yyXYEfM6N-IB4>
Subject: [bess] Comment at the mic
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:09:41 -0000

Hey Keyur,

I would like to share my perspective on your comment made at the BESS
yesterday.

What you pointed out that VPN demux should be removed or renewed when we
rewrite bgp next hop is very true in 4364 world or even in EVPN world where
VPN label is of local significance.

But in Srihari's proposal VPN demux may be of domain wide significance
hence mandating its removal at each EBGP boundary in the spec would be a
bad hint.

See with SID indicating to which VRF packet belongs applied consistently by
say NMS your option C becomes seamless without any "next-hop-unchanged"
hacks nor making PE-PE for multihomed sites failover requires any fancy
shadow LFIBs or control plane "taps" into updates which just pass by.

So while in general my personal opinion is that we do not need yet one more
way of  protocol encoding to accomplish L3VPNs which already is shipping in
the form of 4364 and EVPN standards if WG decides to proceed let's learn
from the past experience here.

Cheers,
R.