[bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue with draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway => Requesting feedback from IDR
slitkows.ietf@gmail.com Mon, 08 June 2020 08:34 UTC
Return-Path: <slitkows.ietf@gmail.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 465CD3A09D8; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 01:34:26 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vxOewf1gbTaG; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 01:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 8C5123A09D9; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 01:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id y17so16382333wrn.11; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 01:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=eBoI3+UFXbyPAHCGbgGlizN2+mu4HNRoD1JORDyjHMY=; b=cYSlt8pXVx90K6Mhss2K/nFuKmB7D2QkVcYxFNKy8YpvGYvV7F1+t6BgTHyUve1y9W qjJF56gbOB/a7axaf+uhVVujFJ9WNua0h1ypvZx8drU9Ywp6a3tM5rWu+s28+VGLojKk Rmov0iO992PRqFPWp7Nzrx1ujbmI4HIngOG5CQJpC5UzczPIKe+xq6eTfIqbO/jIBazM 2dYUQ5N1mxNsixXIW90GuJzoG/gVVFxOyIFv3O2hwrQMKb3QhzjuR0gxs3xvgN22wMcU 7t3efyku3tXcaSgAN/qhl73hrbzR101SFNHAHx8G7XeyS/VT23p5XM4lSlkDhZxKfSzk 7gEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=eBoI3+UFXbyPAHCGbgGlizN2+mu4HNRoD1JORDyjHMY=; b=kx57bKBdHi3V03WS1RGCEvWN9iUICf36AWhfZ2aSApVaG1ASOwcMhPUUIxQeCdzzPc 0usDQKf9BXTrwS2FkTB3tSwrxMFQXHE5dUonrggGv4ywsL5mh+rQWAbZCaKZSD6HYGyF D1kYbwkGoZuGKO90j9kX1X4bfGsSQgPmSFPibP0JNY81D5yxfzgBE4Lse+4hYP56qi7U Ubhi6jSYgCTBTBDRoL89tu5tsn4yhFWc8Vou8AvLtmIkqVTUPMoA+53Cw4tdE9u30IXR 5fVgRHSq+LWMdopQlNHeNVGHxwJIKtoEo1EF4BCaR6tAkKyqYhAICDTd27oY7cTnbWYx cOeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lqzbN/GJzw0zG64td4mJXleypNzZ4FmVyj5QWdn/nC4tWFS1x FPLIgB8SXkyNL0iAlS2JW8vx8KA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwciDhbebR0RK/cFiR3GrMzahX98XjE7neT54lhSetK6YK0ErQNPjkCh+KSc+FluEungTRaQ==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f251:: with SMTP id b17mr5534388wrp.289.1591605262520; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 01:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SLITKOWS3YYU6 ([173.38.220.53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d18sm22701010wrn.34.2020.06.08.01.34.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jun 2020 01:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
To: "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:34:20 +0200
Message-ID: <00cc01d63d6f$9b7af880$d270e980$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdY9bo4/TU2DPnVJRk6laO7OfDvRtQ==
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/vAWH9WLBB1MM83qQEBnINR887GY>
Subject: [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 08:34:26 -0000
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] 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