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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 24 February 2020 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 D79253A128D for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:24:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 OqU1Gkltept0 for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21463A128C for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4B6D41E2D6; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:30:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:30:15 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "bgp-autoconf@ietf.org" <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200224203014.GA4433@pfrc.org>
References: <89bb996682564b99af57133a76b8dc6b@huawei.com> <m2a75u3tcx.wl-randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m2a75u3tcx.wl-randy@psg.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp-autoconf/ljZnhrkt4v5Q1GC_a2zvBl843rE>
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, 24 Feb 2020 20:24:32 -0000

[choosing this message for the reply]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 02:50:06PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > EBGP using connected-interface address
> > EBGP using loopback address
> > ECMP
> > Validation of allowed peers
> > Liveness detection
> > Supported address family for session setup: IPv4, IPv6
> > Authentication
> > ....
> > 
> > Please share your opinions about this list.
> 
> - signal your ip address (which will tell me v4 or v6) and, as
>   it is the 21st century, assump MPBGP
> - signal your asn.  if it is the same as mine, it's iBGP so
>   no need to think about multi-hop etc
> - signal how many hops i need to get to your listener
> - signal the authentication
> 
> isn't the rest either discoverd/agreed in the OPEN or automagic?

Mostly.  Later in the thread I see the opinion about authentication got more
complicated, which I think is a necessary thing.

One of the ideas I pushed for in the lldp draft, and mentioned similarly in
the Acee IGP RR discovery drafts was the idea of a "role".  It is left
intentionally unspecified in the draft at the moment since policy/config can
help reconcile it, but perhaps as we work on the design having a more formal
definition may be helpful.

A role in a DC fabric context can be what layer of the fabric the router is
operating at.  E.g. in a 3 layer fabric, leaf should interact with
aggregate, aggregate with leaf and spine, etc.  This helps with discovery
and helps avoid misconnectivity.

A role for a standard ISP PE would be "customer", "reflector", etc.

And yes, there's likely overlap with ideas such as ASPA.

---

An interesting question about layering also covers your point above:
Discovery lets you find a thing that speaks BGP and some of the expected
properties.  Some of the things the automation proposals could do could
either live in the discovery mechanism or in the BGP speaker itself.  Role,
for example.  Transport security mechanism likely has to live in the
discovery.

-- Jeff