Re: [bess] [Idr] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue with draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway => Requesting feedback from IDR
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Mon, 08 June 2020 15:24 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 2002E3A0C0A; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, 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 AQp_fwhL-dGp; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (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 A55653A0B6A; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id d5so19076990ios.9; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KlQgXMmu5oiVpVBSQNjn5o1qXDUME0L9pMKzRyuCvHo=; b=W4BK6zcKSn7pdabuFRTzXJVY0cyOkNrlEWIufmMtUibSnV4QtzBOf9wfT80VjfAOhV ua1AbsXsEqxVt1TFOjpGnRLnQhlmjXsZsQ7VNuoNZx4jYnaJXNj9RangLrAYXFWFe7md AtMVKHfWGsDeRbV7vf7TkqprMB0G1S8vewzeshRhrgyz2GYCDGdvtLMsLQDlr42Er301 h4t2tlmuReXnLB0tjSdym84fDSXHiFciQQ9MWHptEjGL3gIg8fU7SYGe+IokpjvUV4Rk sS+sFgW1mJ1Nb3h76Fa2AcG39Uo4IEamTsi2UfEnUXadPprXbEEvA3Al9STOSNLJI2cB eT+g==
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=KlQgXMmu5oiVpVBSQNjn5o1qXDUME0L9pMKzRyuCvHo=; b=BdkCmbTTFqoRgtT0o18xEbNaQ7JmHKA84T4xzG+JLjDgLdS0YXokS/7oeUv0HKG/tb /U2kAHTdDYMyPIcgD+/x54phPbB1LrW830CWPxAUCsIna8oWNAwFxkiADMXkNaVRo10B u6RwB7ZxzC36dd9ojT7D/ueR9eSOIE1G1sQAW/RLKccCEHv7nHISVnfDQdTbN0htP3uE W752LcQPGNtLGgnBPvKL4tkKc9VQ+stPaH8xSAKcaIDsQgkPCvd9XhyaDueay0FetcEN tWdq9himI3Cxe5c+STykr4LOQWzXcNm4IviUbDLYqQhEOLCftoDCXLXea0k5V+rzfBpr IcXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532A/0c6iORQHS36EXkUf8Dq7yIa4m4oZgqlmupWNTwAVE64Ekna hafTcdwAAWAHfcSE3TJcFlYPbSzo+fx/BspG/KU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyae3Nh0W4z47llAWP3lm/ymgbOxx3OblhCrKMyWehOKIxx4xWS5dxqbEW5E+CIEMNohXwotz7UTR0qiuvzP3o=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:914d:: with SMTP id y13mr22546326ioq.48.1591629854841; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00cc01d63d6f$9b7af880$d270e980$@gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGpLCVNiMOFPV3PoTE=LkcwbYJVmHgfnMcOCuuOk_wm3Q@mail.gmail.com> <011601d63da3$dc4aedf0$94e0c9d0$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <011601d63da3$dc4aedf0$94e0c9d0$@gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 11:24:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3mbF_6MaAeFtSXfn3sMAqwXcWbo9yzo+fc+Gk++wTLrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: BESS <bess@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001c9dac05a794340f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/wJv7D7uYEROu0unYlarnSA73JcE>
Subject: Re: [bess] [Idr] 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 15:24:24 -0000
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 10:49 AM <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > > > Thanks for your feedback. > > Please find some comments inline. > > > > Stephane > > > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* lundi 8 juin 2020 11:55 > *To:* slitkows.ietf@gmail.com > *Cc:* idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>; BESS <bess@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [bess] FW: Closing on Stephane's open issue with > draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway => Requesting feedback from IDR > > > > 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. > > [SLI] Right, but nothing prevents someone to activate it or it can be > activated “by inheritance” if sessions already runs VPNv4 for instance with > RTC. > > > > 1. 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. > > [SLI] RFC4684 is AFI/SAFI agnostic. I’m not aware of per-AFI/SAFI scoping > of RT membership from an implementation point of view. You can do it by > splitting sessions usually. > > > > [SLI] It could work if: we prevent usage of RTC for these families, or we > specify the default behavior of RTC for AFI/SAFI 1/1, 2/1 when there is no > RT (distribute routes that don’t have an RT). > > > > > > As a general comment I do not see any issues using RTs on non VPN SAFIs. > > [Gyan] Technically there is no issues that I know of using RT with SAFI > 1. As RT is carried in extended community attribute it is common in > certain cases where both standard and extended communities are propagated > to edge Non VPN award edge CEs in a IP VPN use case. In that use case as > well in VRF lite non MPLS IP VPN use cases where RTs can be utilized for RT > import of prefixes into a VRF. As Stephane mentioned with RFC 4684 RTC > membership is AFI/SAFI independent, so if RTC is used it would apply to > all SAFI using RT which in this case applies as well to SAFI 1. > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
- [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