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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 07 February 2020 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 6F31C120105 for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:19:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 pzEOP2gcq9On for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22b.google.com (mail-oi1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22b]) (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 5C0F61200FE for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id b18so3697915oie.2 for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 15:19:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OnhU3FhcM6b5QXuQ2bquVtJAcCGP85tE2Z+bKEdDsRU=; b=IvOpm8B5HnK/tybyWXMyLvBb1ufl4sbWsZPY1oKo0BR6wI2NipwnX1QX8sMh8ljM5m P/v0Jd1x3udTq4II5ZikAhiziFfplOFWS6s/6qMjlOr5uJNqmnR5X3eybLtEJqXKwpjZ bJuZkNmZtz83iLggzQC6u/knIfhtei1AaGgHHa5oNHex+XzZazYXvT3HJBeCJAtlcfTg 4u2aF/xY8D23RjF8Qsk8+Mxkx+UfrhbTzvK8oeG9czJwnPQVH3tj5V3H38zuyp/HCNbE SNbfiwgeRqeaHO8TiSnXSuAL/NCAoGNFREAsxj6t7NgpFjk19v9abnlieKdN1O/6sznH ozgw==
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=OnhU3FhcM6b5QXuQ2bquVtJAcCGP85tE2Z+bKEdDsRU=; b=mDZA7feahxXxBLlqIkwK9aBu0Bgw3j0YMmBAzWkkBO8J6smp3GVGZFLMJnncWU4OIw w8AoonUClxicMH7laOiplpGKyisC0zfLz9s5PYsjlIN9chYHONiIJJ8lwUvUKbSr0Ib0 8hA/rzM4nmn44Up4yUmAc8ZIlLco9ShdYOTb2kZuS08L/VUbse+tKbWKoJimW7k2bpKr QWlQmchAr85fdNixwmQyQTyBsZKdaQ7sySWZJ27u2Avc5RqMHRXfuaSKqWk/Xz59F8ns Y5eiZ0pFwaolnzHawQFRGESIaXCAR9cl5Uz9rYIbLE61Y5eFKYPKAK/yZoQDBarnXydA 621Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWOg0crFLWRKUTQqtTsngz+5qvhCCHkVPIHatM8LZUysndHa1fW bD3nfR5FZpvdrkCvEroZKjuwIZi4CCQiEm5gv5HhXA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzjKjXvNQNHtXBNdVigR9vFXQ08823XYwI8swMwcs5l1rPQuulvdEcatkblbQL+XDuqK9N4DOKQn0AHsbSh4Zk=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c7ca:: with SMTP id x193mr3742677oif.70.1581117558530; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 15:19:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <89bb996682564b99af57133a76b8dc6b@huawei.com> <m2a75u3tcx.wl-randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2a75u3tcx.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 00:19:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMH7ERDbHt6jy1guLUg-ncqbVhv5GaYTd2Hb4a6R82sd7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "bgp-autoconf@ietf.org" <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006cb639059e049e24"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp-autoconf/wbGa76PnbM5ZgCTTmWeKf1RMSrM>
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 23:19:21 -0000

Hi Randy & Dongjie,

Before we dive into bits and pieces is the assumption that auto
discovered stuff is ephemeral and disappears upon reboot or is to stay for
a while in the box ?

How about marking peers as upstream vs downstream? See we may wan to apply
different peer templates up vs down say different prefix limits as example
- example to compute vs spine from a given TOR.

>  - signal your ip address (which will tell me v4 or v6) and, as
>   it is the 21st century, assump MPBGP

Do you want to try all possible AFI/SAFIs in capabilities ?

> - signal your asn.  if it is the same as mine, it's iBGP so
>   no need to think about multi-hop etc

if it is not the same then you guess if this is multihop, disable
connected-check or p2p ?

> - signal how many hops i need to get to your listener

How would I ever know that apriori ? BTSH in autodiscovery case is a little
bit tricky :).

> - signal the authentication

You mean type ? Well I would put those into pre-cfg template instead.

> EBGP using connected-interface address
> > EBGP using loopback address
> > ECMP
>

ECMP is not property of the session. It is internal thing to given end. I
don't think we need to autodiscover it.


> > Validation of allowed peers
>

Sure but again this is local policy.


> > Liveness detection
>

You mean BFD on/off + BFD flavor ? Or something else ?


> > Supported address family for session setup: IPv4, IPv6
>

+1


> > Authentication
>

as commented above

Thx,
r.

PS. I really do not know how far we want to go here but there is few things
which ORF can help us with too.