Re: [Bgp-autoconf] bgp auto configuration -01 update after interim discussion

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 23 June 2021 13:16 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 055B33A37AB for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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=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 Dv5xAvIr6eOa for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (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 CF4373A37AF for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id d16so4080575lfn.3 for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
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=EWcDMUQ9GDD9zha2Ar+JkAZ2H+pk8KM4s0Z4I7ujxHs=; b=UVA/wglnmSe3nOxf5PirWvKn5Hura5I8zbSk6giWUPUQXS/gBYL4A2sGhDuqUbvymC HD0aGHNKS87ewmznc5Bz1AiqeY3WexqdQmiT3Aa5ZoSsYVOr9pfD3tHZsIf/6flaKk2V ymDbkO0bgu6RZDr3693USBvNDpo/xI3ExeqB37+h450+lzzZChC/lcN2j3M8TXdiSYd/ Vzd9VSXJAtw6JSBeBjsVHQmh2aU24BHf+vXukMHkSRboQam2hCisXq3IEvjjNiI9nlNu sq8LZp+J85ASAP7yDLjaHu1msUoDE43+Fkm5voUQTtU/TPonWi4PmssAZMqtuVoj6GkU fV+A==
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=EWcDMUQ9GDD9zha2Ar+JkAZ2H+pk8KM4s0Z4I7ujxHs=; b=sWyB+U7iDK9zQ2Ofo08RrwL/yea+WBHFsy/NbD+CCheDdwmlWDVVgdbxfbIMz+/tsh p7Y6j5/lGKT4Re5O/hW1zvt3W1muZ5bCXtApcDTL+Wfs0KeAU+reehjzMquhsA6533Wh pd8KGSGViX+dkOmjwtBHaf8xWDZk/zYGR2VmUvwQTHSEW/XtcVCdz3+E/iMsHnfgOAAT 3xhOW7FK0Gc1CzjloRYbqxkneXApQReDEZhYUCbuLoj+oMAS4VPcT25lkyo3HdQGPk3A Lp0JsyQBJu7m8x6OiFaZw/I+Ol+tkhEf8R8dLbIZ0LV8OB3RNnSe2XBeSwLlbHwPKqhb 6W8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319C3bPbluQIr96IWVpZc/ILUgDcy9CxabKRxxYVE3YQw76J7yi 4tddSvFUvrmddxucwOa7knEGAt6p7wSN5O9YnJYoSw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4At1T4+kXuqOhOfAbGAeS7GgcmReZzat7sB0v905Ms+bkscU4eGvDo+X5qI+krwMoAPOcm9++hlbOZkEXeBI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3d20:: with SMTP id d32mr6922726lfv.517.1624454177675; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210622203227.GA17412@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMH1qRbHjqTJAdbgV1_OGC5x18VYgzfweN3KwmwOrryDhg@mail.gmail.com> <20210623130335.GA14665@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210623130335.GA14665@pfrc.org>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:16:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEE4BZeOw0LNfHSoquocTTw_PK0KnS8YBUoefsdHhPYpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: bgp-autoconf@ietf.org, idr-chairs <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000370bf405c56eb657"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp-autoconf/yicrcRmVkrKn0W9_n5_Xk0CepnE>
Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] bgp auto configuration -01 update after interim discussion
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: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 13:16:27 -0000

Hi Jeff,

I am referring to this slide

[image: image.png]


The feedback from the working group is that afi/safi is not to be contained
> in those packets.


So are you saying that AFI/SAFI will not be part of the auto discovery ?

If so I agree and all is clear.

> Q2 Assume we use dynamic capabilities (only for AFI/SAFI update) how
> > would it work with auto discovery if at all ?
>
> I'd consider it out of scope since it's not a deployed feature.
>

Well deployed or not the question I think is still valid. But again if we
are not to carry AFI/SAFI in AD then no issue.

> The reason for this is that what we are doing is essentially
> > duplicating AFI/SAFI from BGP OPEN which I am not sure if this is a
> > feature or a bug.
>
> This information is not carried in the auto-discovery PDU.  It is learned
> from connecting to the peer and learning it from the OPEN message.
>
> If you think the text doesn't adequately explain that, please supply some
> clarifying text.
>

Then I am not quite sure why do we then even talk about it ? Especially
looking at the slide it seems like this is part of AD.

BGP OPEN comes after AD.


> Lastly, how about cases where endpoints have configured potential
> > peering, however it is not activated in cfg. Assuming that we would
> > still want to signal those in autodiscovery would you send it when
> > enabled and not activated on a neighbor ?
>
> I have no idea what this might mean.
>
> If you haven't activated it in configuration, why would the discovery
> protocol advertise an endpoint is available?


This is part of Cisco cfg to activate AF or not.

But before spending any time on this here let's clarify if "supported
AFI/SAFIs" are part of AD messages or not.

Thx,
R.