Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03
Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Fri, 19 January 2018 02:51 UTC
Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
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 95E55129BBF for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:51:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 i28eXhc_YZFX for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:51:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 9DB9E120047 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:51:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 140FB6FFD7B78 for <bess@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:51:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:51:17 +0000
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:51:06 +0800
From: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03
Thread-Index: AdN6NEanDCpPv20UQYKcimcePljNRgV/IaUAACeELtA=
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:51:06 +0000
Message-ID: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115A99A13C38@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115A99A06375@nkgeml514-mbs.china.huawei.com> <8e57623a-2644-94e0-bc77-3138df4014f2@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <8e57623a-2644-94e0-bc77-3138df4014f2@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.217.214]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115A99A13C38nkgeml514mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/nTe_qqpUIzZDQgHPnVaUwkygJjo>
Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 19 Jan 2018 02:51:22 -0000
Issue clarification: According to chap 5.2 of this document: In a [IngressPE--EgressABR--EgressPE] topology, IngressPE send a Wildcard S-PMSI(*,*) route with PTA(flag<LIR+LIR-pF>), whose NLRI is donated as SPMSI(type<0/1/2>RD,*,*,IngressPE). This SPMSI route will be relayed by EgressABR to EgressPE with PTA flag untouched. Then EgressPE will generate ONE LeafAD route with NLRI(type<0/1/2>RD,*,*,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR>, and N(N>=0) LeafAD routes with NLRI(type<16/17/18>RD,S,G,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR>. Then according to chap 5.3 of this document: EgressABR will only send a Leaf A-D route. I guess, the said "a Leaf A-D route" should be the ONE of LeafAD(type<0/1/2RD,*,*,IngressPE,EgressABR) with RT<EgressABR>. Then how should EgressABR deal with the the N(N>=0) LeafAD routes with NLRI(type<16/17/18>RD,S,G,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR> ? It is not clarified in RFC7524 either. See chap 7.1 of RFC7524, which only clarify LeafAD route with type<0/1/2>RD. Should such LeafAD route with type<16/17/18>RD be accepted and installed by EgressABR ? And then 'relay' back to IngressPE, and thus enable IngressPE explicit tracking inside the ingress "segmentation domain" ? Question clarification: (1) Should such LeafAD routes with type<16/17/18>RD be accepted and installed by EgressABR ? This draft does not describe this. (2) If the said Leaf A-D routes (with RD type 16/17/18) be installed by EgressABR, then according to your answer, the Leaf A-D routes (with RT changed) will be 'relay' back to IngressPE. Right? This draft does not describe this either. (3) If the above two are correct, then We can use PTA<type=NoTnlInfo, flag=LIR+LIRpF> in segmented P-tunnels scenario? But <draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-09> seems to imply that LIR-pF flag can't be used in Segmented P-tunnels scenario. Its chap 2.2.2 requires that, LIR-pF Flag is used only when non segmented P-tunnels are used. Thanks. XieJingrong From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:erosen@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:49 PM To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03 I apologize for the delay in answering this message. On 12/21/2017 4:22 AM, Xiejingrong wrote: I have a comment on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03. The chap 5.3 of this document said: Furthermore, if the PTA specifies "no tunnel info", the LIR and LIR-pF flags in the PTA MUST be passed along unchanged. This will ensure that an egress ABR/ASBR only sends a Leaf A-D route in response to a "match for tracking" if it is on the path to an egress PE for the flow(s) identified in the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. The issue is as follow: In a [IngressPE--EgressABR--EgressPE] topology, IngressPE send a Wildcard S-PMSI(*,*) route with PTA(flag<LIR+LIR-pF>), whose NLRI is donated as SPMSI(type<0/1/2>RD,*,*,IngressPE). This SPMSI route will be relayed by EgressABR to EgressPE with PTA flag untouched. Then EgressPE will generate ONE LeafAD route with NLRI(type<0/1/2>RD,*,*,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR> and N(N>=0) LeafAD routes with NLRI(type<16/17/18>RD,S,G,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR>. All according to chap 5.2 of this document. Then according to chap 5.3 of this document: IngressABR will only send a Leaf A-D route, It should be the ONE of LeafAD(type<0/1/2RD,*,*,IngressPE,EgressABR) with RT<IngressABR>. In the example above, there is an "EgressABR" but not an "IngressABR". So I'm not completely sure that I understand your question. Then how should IngressABR deal with the the N(N>=0) LeafAD routes with NLRI(type<16/17/18>RD,S,G,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR> ? It is not clarified in RFC7524 either. See chap 7.1 of RFC7524, which only clarify LeafAD route with type<0/1/2>RD. Should such LeafAD route with type<16/17/18>RD be accepted and installed by EgressABR, and then 'relay' back to IngressPE, and thus enable IngressPE explicit tracking inside the ingress "segmentation domain" ? The intention is the following. Suppose an egress ABR/ASBR satisfies the following two conditions: 1. It has installed an S-PMSI A-D route with the following properties: - its NLRI has wildcards for S and G, - its NLRI specifies PE1 as the ingress PE, - its PTA specifies "no tunnel info" and has LIR-pF set. 2. It has installed one or more Leaf A-D routes whose NLRI specifies (S,G) with PE1 as ingress PE Then the ABR/ASBR should originate a Leaf A-D route (with RD type 16/17/18) specifying (S,G) with ingress PE1. The Leaf A-D route would be withdrawn when one of these conditions no longer holds. Does this answer your question?
- [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-trac… Xiejingrong
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-… Eric C Rosen
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-… Xiejingrong
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-… Eric C Rosen
- Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-… Xiejingrong