IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Discussion about BGP autoconf requirements in DC

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Mon, 10 February 2020 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EEB912080B for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:57:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 i5qPbLek_-In for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 124DB12080C for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4500F899FB4FF42B7E54 for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:57:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.155) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:57:37 +0000
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.156) by nkgeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:57:33 +0800
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.156]) by nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.156]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:57:33 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
CC: "bgp-autoconf@ietf.org" <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bgp-autoconf] Discussion about BGP autoconf requirements in DC
Thread-Index: AdXdoUXCj6AoAVwuSs2cA3dZ7wwGNAAJJ0AAAAEDRwAAAG/pgAAaMmqAAA7pFYAAA7h8gABqrj0g
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:57:33 +0000
Message-ID: <1940baf7199241b08c06c3e4cd6e3091@huawei.com>
References: <89bb996682564b99af57133a76b8dc6b@huawei.com> <m2a75u3tcx.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAOj+MMH7ERDbHt6jy1guLUg-ncqbVhv5GaYTd2Hb4a6R82sd7w@mail.gmail.com> <m27e0y3rfq.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAOj+MMGeCS10NpXxaWj82urs8xV03oF8Lm6B_xxxkZduBMUcRA@mail.gmail.com> <m2mu9s3nig.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAOj+MMHv1gkyMn6McHkm9p3WwUF3JpxEJ4XeJ2w8Pr5nnHL3gg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHv1gkyMn6McHkm9p3WwUF3JpxEJ4XeJ2w8Pr5nnHL3gg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.167.2]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1940baf7199241b08c06c3e4cd6e3091huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp-autoconf/f6hKsYpuMAOsjEis4wyh6fwhnGw>
Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Discussion about BGP autoconf requirements in DC
X-BeenThere: bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP autoconfiguration design team discussion list <bgp-autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bgp-autoconf>, <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bgp-autoconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bgp-autoconf>, <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:57:43 -0000

Hi Robert and all,

Please see inline with [Jie]:

Best regards,
Jie

From: Bgp-autoconf [mailto:bgp-autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 4:55 AM
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Discussion about BGP autoconf requirements in DC

> I am not stating that we should or should not but do we have full
> agreement that DC case must cover any other BGP peering except p2p and
> lo2lo over p2p ? Is there a real requirement to discover your peers
> few IP hops away ?

how do we socialize this question?  maybe we, as the dt, put out a short
goals statement on idr and see if it flies?

It would be interesting to first get a sense how dt feels about it ?

[Jie] Yes we as the design team need to reach some rough consensus on the requirement list first. Thus I’d encourage our members to express you opinions on the requirements. As mentioned in my previous reply, we could provide a minimal set of mandatory requirements and a relatively short list of optional requirements for the DC scenario.

We already divided DC from WAN/IXP spaces.

For WAN/IXP clearly multihop is a requirement. But IMHO for DC it is not. Anyone has a different opinion and could explain why ?

[Jie] To be more precise, for BGP as DC underlay, it is likely that P2P session is the major requirement.

/* I am not sure how do we probe for such questions even within dt :) */

> As far as md5, A0, XYZ to validate if you are legitimate peer this
> really is not an autodiscovery part. IMO it should be part of
> preconfigured template.

having a bit of infosec blood, i am a bit more concerned.  but you are
right, it's tough; either a leap of faith or a bleedin' infrastructure;
see draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing.

By all means you know much more in this space. My comment was just coming from past experience when we designed auto CE peering to PE via BGP for ATT they just insisted about two features: prefix range check and MD5 pre cfg.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email