Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02
wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn Wed, 28 July 2021 12:06 UTC
Return-Path: <wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn>
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 434D03A0B8D for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 05:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VwkNThNZjSSX for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 05:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 591F93A0CC1 for <bess@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 05:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id F08CF9CE943829FE0F33 for <bess@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:06:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id D171FF291BA5BB1930B1; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:06:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 16SC69os019963; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:06:09 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:06:09 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:06:09 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af9610148313a9cd813
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202107282006092724737@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BY3PR08MB706047FBE8D519335A9D952FF7EA9@BY3PR08MB7060.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: 202107281552367356382@zte.com.cn, BY3PR08MB706047FBE8D519335A9D952FF7EA9@BY3PR08MB7060.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn
To: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 16SC69os019963
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/6GdV87gdyKryqbhdLNYI6P6ONuE>
Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:06:47 -0000
Hi Jorge, Please see in-line with [Yubao_2]. Thanks, Yubao 原始邮件 发件人:Rabadan,Jorge(Nokia-US/MountainView) 收件人:王玉保10045807; 抄送人:bess@ietf.org; 日 期 :2021年07月28日 18:18 主 题 :Re: Re:Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02 Hi Yubao, Please see in-line with [jorge]. Thanks. Jorge From: wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn <wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn> Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 9:53 AM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re:Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02 Hi Jorge, Thanks for your email, but I still don't understand why an ESI is needed here. I know there is a static-route 1.1.1.1 on Leaf-2, but my question is that how leaf-2 knows the overlay nexthop of 50.0.0.0/24 is 1.1.1.1 (by which that ARP entry is found out at last)? [jorge] leaf-2 does a recursive resolution. It has a RT5 for 50.0.0.0/24 with next-hop e.g., Leaf-1, and ESI=ESI-1. So when Leaf-2 receives packets with IP DA = 50.0.0.x, it will have a route installed pointing at the local ESI-1, and the local ESI-1 is associated to 1.1.1.1, for which leaf-2 has a route (static or igp). As you illustrated in slide 7, Leaf-2 can't get this information from VNF-1 directly, [jorge] but it does get it via RT5 with ESI, which is resolved locally. Leaf-2 just have to get this informatio from the IP Prefix Route Advertisement of Leaf-1 or Leaf-4, But you explained that these route are advertised without GW-IP. I don't understand it very well. [jorge] see above. Hope it helps now. maybe you mean we can inferred from the ESI field that the overlay nexthop is the static-route 1.1.1.1 whose ESI is ESI-1? This approach maybe works. but the IP address 1.1.1.1 can be directly advertised as GW-IP overlay index along with prefix 50.0.0.0/24 naturally if we don't manually change its behavior. so why should we bother to infer from a manual-configured ESI? [jorge] Some points: The ESI can be auto derived as indicated in the draft Using the GW-IP as overlay-index is used in interface-ful models and the use-cases resolved by an RT2 in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement. Non upgraded PEs may have an issue with the resolution. However the ESI as an overlay-index resolved to AD routes is documented in the prefix-advertisement draft. [Yubao_2] Non-upraded PEs may have an issue to resolution an ESI to an static-route too. I don't think these two similar issues should be a big concern. Most of protocol extensions have similar issues. The ESI overlay index is just used in the bump in the wire use case in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement. In that use case, the ESI is configured on L2 ACs and its Ethernet A-D per EVI is advertised for a BD, But in the use case we discussed here, there are no BD1 or BD2 on Leaf-5. They are very different use cases and forwarding procedures. Even in the Bump-in-the-wire use case, although the RT-5 route has the ESI23 as overlay index, but how does the DGWs know which BD should that ESI23 belongs to ? Note that many BDs(or MAC-VRFs) can advertise Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for the same ESI23 independently. so I think Bump-in-the-wire is very different from the ESI for static-route. And the control-plane defined in Bump-in-the-wire may be not so sufficient for the ESI for static-route. Here we really want to use the ESI as an overlay index and resolve based on the AD routes, which gives a consistent solution for the three use cases in the draft, and other things like e.g., not only aliasing, but also primary/backup behavior [Yubao_2] Use GW-IP overlay index, primary/backup behavior can also be supported. Leaf-1/2/3/4 will advertise a RT-5 route for 1.1.1.1 separately, and they can advertise different preferences/metrics separately. GW-IP overlay index can be a consistent solution whether the PE-CE BGP sessions are established between Leaf-1/2/3/4 and VNF-1 or between DGW and VNF-1. Yubao 原始邮件 发件人:Rabadan,Jorge(Nokia-US/MountainView) 收件人:王玉保10045807; 抄送人:bess@ietf.org; 日 期 :2021年07月28日 14:46 主 题 :Re: Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02 Hi Yubao, Thanks for your email. Yes, you misunderstood the use-case 😊 but these are good questions, we will clarify in the next revision. 1. The IP Prefix routes are advertised with the ESI and always a zero-GW-IP. a. Three co-authors of this draft are also co-authors of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement and the latter explicitly prohibits the use of non-zero ESI and non-zero GW-IP simultaneously. So you will not see the use of the GW-IP in draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing. b. In fact that is also one of my comments for draft-mackenzie-bess-evpn-l3aa-proto-00: using non-zero ESI *and* non-zero GW-IP in the IP Prefix routes is non-backwards compatible and will break interoperability with existing RRs. But I will send a separate email with my comments. 2. About the use-case of slide 7: a. As mentioned, the (virtual) ES is associated to the VNF loopback, i.e. 1.1.1.1, and its operational state is tied to the reachability of that loopback. b. On leaf-1/2/3/4, the reachability of the loopback is determined by a static-route or IGP, and can be used along with BFD to speed up fault detection. c. As an example, suppose leaf-2 has a static-route to 1.1.1.1 with next-hops {20.0.0.1,20.0.0.2,20.0.0.3}, and 1.1.1.1 is associated to ES-1. 1. The ARP resolution to those next-hops is done as usual, nothing especial, it’s done as soon as the static-route is added. 2. ES-1 will be oper-up as long as the static route is active in the IP-VRF route-table. When it goes inactive, ES-1 will go down and the AD routes withdrawn. 3. Obviously, and individual AC going down in leaf-2 will not make the static-route inactive, hence will not bring down the ES. The IRB going down will make the static-route inactive, hence the ES will go down. d. A similar example would work with an IGP instead of a static route to 1.1.1.1. I think that should clarify your questions. Let me know otherwise. Thanks. Jorge From: wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn <wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn> Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 12:14 AM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02 Hi Jorge, This is the detailed explanation of the question I asked in the IETF 111 meeting. In page 7 of slides-111-bess-sessa-evpn-ip-aliasing, when leaf-5 send traffic to leaf-2, how does leaf-2 find the corresponding ARP entry for 20.0.0.2 or 20.0.0.1 or 20.1.1.3 ? I guess the GW-IP 1.1.1.1 will be advertised as overlay index along with the ESI. But the draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11 does not define an IP Prefix Advertisement Route with both GW-IP and ESI both as overlay index. I suggest that this should be updated if you want to do so. And the preference of ESI overlay index should be considered higher than GW-IP overlay index for Leaf-5's sake. But the preference of ESI overlay index should be considered lower than (or maybe they should both be used? ) GW-IP overlay index for Leaf-2's sake These are new rules that can't be found in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11 . But on the contary, if the IP Prefix Advertisement Route has a GW-IP overlay index, It can support the same protection procedures without any ESI overlay index. ( The details to do such protection using GW-IP overlay index I have described in draft-wang-bess-evpn-arp-nd-synch-without-irb-06. ) So I don't get the point why we need two redundant overlay index? Can you clearify it? Maybe an IP Prefix Route Style with a GW-IP overlay index is engough here. And such Route Style is in compliance with draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11 already. Another question is that: If the ESI overlay index is advertised, when will the IP A-D per EVI route of Leaf-2 be withdrawn? When the IRB interface on Leaf-2 fails? When one of the three ACs fails? When all of the three ACs fails? If you want to do so, I suggest that the ESI-1 to be configured onto the IRB interfaces, But in Figure 2 of draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02, I see the ESI is configured on the ACs of the BDs. Is anything I have misunderstood? Best, Yubao
- [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-ali… wang.yubao2
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… wang.yubao2
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… wang.yubao2
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… wang.yubao2
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… wang.yubao2
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… wang.yubao2
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)