Re: [bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue with draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway => Requesting feedback from IDR
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 08 June 2020 09:55 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 3ED783A0825 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 ygAVPgr94sP2 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 02:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) (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 0C5073A0827 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 02:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id l27so17592176ejc.1 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 02:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SizR9brSl2bur1Z6xru1v5Vv8HQ6BhmQ37MlWyEtLL4=; b=FgrWa9jLwaZnMkQTtiojqwMLC667/foDcGlIW+B2z4vVAMXtGM8dqJ6vsXYfVJBb6a /aVnQaF6wMJCReZ/m56PTQ4Q/VxDL0ys/i73P6NcD3po6K7NgVk88LzV73PcQhR7Q7lb Bake5hOHcyF75fSPS+X5uyup08JB1+V8U7YSxmpQpS/xRR0MhxYcENv1YZiVWRbicXyj aUb9/CwDMdt+M8k/YTmRwDsQdNcWcOuuRzfp9fhyEWb0O7CF+ey99MM3ZHmaVmUn6r2w VrPAimypLuWuoN49D56EGWkQeBJdBKbT4q0BRnFYFfU3THitrPRflLy24ji26aFwY/Yr tDzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SizR9brSl2bur1Z6xru1v5Vv8HQ6BhmQ37MlWyEtLL4=; b=IP95EuASwJ4F3jJgqvAMe0m3Wg34Ue0GcTR4MdYHYYMpmpkfAwVBolvKuWkEMK3FjQ cdO4276PS9ZrW2Xvieqh8yEua0AJAbq9jkp1AVFzFzFmr/WmVsAxpKrx7TjcV9Ry8/ld gfY2nMnC99yFSiK+YgEdfDYoX0kBXcdXd6/ijxym4jyhwrvelQl2dVn5rW69O+YgzL24 ddEKdmrLSXPYwYPt4/x+vEKa82fLLlhkMN+IkENorx8igrJLZV0GRvhMyw0Sn9ORzDKC UKgGYBjng6dSLbZT9GQBYvqPZdUN8qT1v0H2/rY5yrg9JiVtAbrxeJwVuVXUFHJKxcuu aphA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533eFsLt7lWpshBMaZgww+t0LUlaJAUuPf2hoZkFfZvEuJzpQJiS mt6URln3KNdLV+149k6/DMBSia2gtvp1x6AlFx0dvg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5JvnuBSEgUYbMoT7BxxrsdhJEbyz3RnFgi1qzt1mT4WnDU1oXbMTyFf/8eaK0bcfCdU98zQ+2kOrl7YBIkyQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:31d2:: with SMTP id f18mr19611074ejf.110.1591610137459; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 02:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00cc01d63d6f$9b7af880$d270e980$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <00cc01d63d6f$9b7af880$d270e980$@gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 11:55:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGpLCVNiMOFPV3PoTE=LkcwbYJVmHgfnMcOCuuOk_wm3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dd5ae205a78f9c82"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/7CZXMrXJiAsabya9pp78yQAMD14>
Subject: Re: [bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue with draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway => Requesting feedback from IDR
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: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:55:52 -0000
Stephane, Two points .. 1. It is not clear to me that draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway recommends to use RTC for anything - do they ? If not there is no issue. 2. Also note that RTC can be enabled on a per AF basis hence even if you use it say for SAFI 128 you do not need to use it for SAFI 1. As a general comment I do not see any issues using RTs on non VPN SAFIs. Thx,, R. On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 10:34 AM <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi IDR WG, > > We have a draft that was on WGLC which introduces the usage of Route > Targets > on Internet address families to allow automated filtering of gateway > routes. > I raised a concern on a potential issue happening when Route Target > constraint is deployed on these sessions. > > Internet address families don't use RTs today, and are propagated following > the BGP propagation rules. When applying an RT and when having RTC deployed > on the session (RTC not being family aware), propagation of Internet routes > that don't have an RT may be stopped because of the behavior defined in > draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt. This will so break the existing default behavior > of Internet SAFIs. > > We would like to get IDR's feedback on this topic. > > Thanks, > > Stephane > BESS co-chair > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > Sent: jeudi 4 juin 2020 19:31 > To: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com > Cc: bess-chairs@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway@ietf.org > Subject: Closing on Stephane's open issue with > draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway > > Hi, > > John and I had a chat today about what we perceive is Stephane's open > issue. > > What we think the concern is is that we are using RTs in conjunction with > normal (i.e., non-VPN) routes. We do this to allow gateways to filter their > imports based on the RT that applies to the SR domain that it serves. > > An option was to use the Route Origin extended community instead. > > RFC 4360, which introduces both the Route Target and the Route Origin > extended communities and gives some guidance. Loosely expressed, the RT > says > which routers should import, the RO says which routers have advertised. In > both cases, the text suggests that "One possible use of the community is > specified in RFC4364" which implies that there are other acceptable uses. > > 4364 implies that the RO is used "to uniquely identify the set of routes > learned from a particular site." That is (my words), to apply a filter on > top of the RT to prevent re-import by a site of routes that match the RT > and > that were advertised by other entry points to the site. Indeed, the RO > would > seem to be used (in the 4364 case) only when the RT is also in use. > > We appreciate that the distinction is pretty delicate, but we think we are > right to use RT in this case because we are filtering to import, not to > avoid importing. Furthermore, if we used the RO then, to be consistent with > 4364, we would still be using the RT anyway. > > That, we think, disposes of the "RT or RO?" question. > > Now, we can go back to the original formulation of the question: is it OK > to > use RT with "non-VPN IP addresses"? Well, we consulted around a bit > privately amongst some BGP experts, and we couldn't find anyone to say it > was actually a problem. And (of course) no one raised the issue in WG last > call - but Matthew might claim that is because the document was only > lightly > reviewed, and Stephane might claim that this is because he had already > raised the point. Obviously, some of the authors know a bit about BGP, and > Eric was a lead author on 4364 and drove a lot of the details of what we > wrote. > > Two points in closing: > - If someone can show that we break something, we will have to fix it. > - If the chairs want to run this point past IDR and BESS explicitly, that > would be fine. > > Hope this helps. > > Best, > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
- [bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue with … slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue w… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue w… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue w… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [bess] [Idr] FW: Closing on Stephane's open i… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue w… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] [Idr] FW: Closing on Stephane's open i… Gyan Mishra