Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 23 April 2021 18:22 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE083A1001 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 aV_TA-If_pwa for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 2C2FE3A1948 for <grow@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id x20so48542752lfu.6 for <grow@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eHgJ2KvIpcqAxGct0wjmcgTSiWYLpgI0SnBkT6JImwQ=; b=iE0owxwUVsOQ9eG5chcm9Cl5iXNFBxftnSr+UWQ23B7MrdVYJAENgcQf9xHCrEhY2g upy3cpNERERMo29zwMkmv84O1VQVIDEZaFickHK8R6bF60DiEp6E3OMpaa2swT4UhSqm UycZposG8xTRwl2uwLQZc3HLJ5lomsuuENOomFz5CL5x4GNnDdot0I1HnJPEcpceaoug 2fgH4i5X0/xNxYINEruDJW0U3CtOUpPqVLVYcfCjIKbtg3eF9kV5Z+Or4bo2lnBRtlxJ S4+8cCdWe7IPVFzZUY09CxgdA48BrD1L3GsI673LoFt90GJspbAL+j5vEA/iwY7N4M4M CKlQ==
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=eHgJ2KvIpcqAxGct0wjmcgTSiWYLpgI0SnBkT6JImwQ=; b=UOJZEWdyaiYrCIxIYHksWmgW3uAhz4UoBF1luA4hr08ISiu3PkMNIu29Xlu2u8XKB+ wFPOzODgOH2bhJro7UCx1vk+ysBz9aKX8KT/pIwoPPK8es8Uc4t6Ll0lcsrpWjzRo829 6nWbglKwUGTQXMKf8aXdUOrb5MHkBbLnz1EeovKgTzdf2nzJoQ4GmYJpPXOKgr4Oc7m2 l8prkBhKXVtbhAtqyhKztCHp/NPBGxKleHmw/Hy0X5pRG7Bl5W4HkEwQLQicil2CNWnB dnIj8GRlL3HP/fBZqmqiUNZmmf0m38kyS6CAqnz6pHo1vh8TFfpoiLBhpH7k7RnYxsQM 5CHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LTaFCTaPUjIKk94hROg96xHnLFK3kMZpXpbO7ZOQ1e7Ahl2Hc ntlRWo0GaS+fMhCdwM5mU/BFOKgG0VyPN2pzqT9kkw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzE7k9g3ON79fPAkqsTrrnxLZQbuBQ+i3jmPyZzIXQaZkH7sh+L84wocZaH7RwdJHmCteFTXRuefuJ4jJRAg/Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:104a:: with SMTP id c10mr3718774lfb.459.1619202110533; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161765178219.25574.4147551293313412089@ietfa.amsl.com> <YIBiHiycqGtrEJqt@snel>
In-Reply-To: <YIBiHiycqGtrEJqt@snel>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:21:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i++2a6UTLTaURCwBtmGdSg98KGf2wwozrX+jADkfHs_kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib@ietf.org, GROW-Chairs <grow-chairs@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e99dd05c0a7defc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/la7j5Zsn21VBKAMEoSfb2Bpu0o8>
Subject: Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:22:31 -0000
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 1:34 PM Job Snijders <job= 40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Dear Alvaro, draft authors, > > Perhaps it would be good to have a voice discussion? This might expedite > figuring out a solution to how we describe things. > Yup, that sounds like a good idea to me. Also, I'd like to apologize to the authors for not having made the meaning of "DISCUSS" clearer; hopefully the blog post ( https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/) helps. I don't think I need to be at the meetin' (scheduling difficulties scale exponentially with the number of participants), but happy to show up if useful... W > > >From what I understand the BMP Loc-RIB draft to propose is that all BMP > messages of the Loc-RIB instance type are 'synthesized', as the > Information Base contains the router's best paths (regardless of > original protocol). It indeed would be good if the document is very > clear on this aspect. > > I'm happy to organize a call for early next week (early PST / afternoon > CEST timeslot). > > Kind regards, > > Job & Chris > GROW Chairs > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:43:02PM -0700, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker > wrote: > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10: Discuss > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I am balloting DISCUSS because there are significant clarity issues. > > > > (1) 4.2. Peer Flags > > > > In section 4.2 of [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment > > under the L flag description is removed. If locally sourced routes > > are communicated using BMP, they MUST be conveyed using the Loc-RIB > > instance peer type. > > > > This change is bigger than simply removing a comment: it is changing the > > behavior. Note that §8.2/rfc7854 also talks about the L flag. Do the > same > > considerations apply? I would like to see a clearer treatment of the > change > > related to locally sourced routes -- a separate section/sub-section seems > > appropriate. > > > > (2) §4.2/8.2: Peer Flags > > > > §4.2 defines a new Flag as follows: > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |F| Reserved | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > But it doesn't mention that this field is intended to be specific to the > > Loc-RIB peer-type. OTOH, §8.2 (IANA Considerations) does: > > > > This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer > > flags are specific to the peer type: > > > > The registry [1] shows that the early allocation was made in the > "generic" (not > > per-peer-type) Peer Flags field. The flags defined in rfc7854 and > rfc8671 both > > assume the same set of Flags for all peer types. > > > > [1] > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml#peer-flags > > > > (3) §5.4 (Route Monitoring) The implication in this section is that a > BGP > > UPDATE includes the route information -- but the information in the > Loc-RIB may > > not have come from BGP, so there is no BGP UPDATE to propagate. This > clearly > > is a case where the UPDATE is fabricated. Please provide specific > instructions > > on how this UPDATE is constructed, including any path attributes. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > (1) §3 (Definitions) > > > > * Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to > > an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer. > > > > s/This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer./This is what is sent > to the > > peer. > > > > Note that this document should not use Normative language related to > what a BGP > > session does. In this case, that is rfc4271's job. > > > > (2) §5.2 (Peer UP Notification): "Capabilities MUST include the 4-octet > ASN and > > all necessary capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring > messages. > > Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB monitoring > messages." > > > > Which are the capabilities that "will be used for Loc-RIB monitoring > messages"? > > The action above is required (MUST), but no specifics are given. > > > > (3) §5.2.1: "The Information field contains a UTF-8 string whose value > MUST be > > equal to the value of the VRF or table name (e.g. RD instance name) > being > > conveyed." > > > > - Please take a look at the Shutdown Communication string definition in > rfc9003 > > and use a similar definition. > > > > - The "value of the VRF or table name" is a local matter, right? How > can the > > requirement be normatively enforced? How can the receiver enforce the > "MUST"? > > IOW, s/MUST.../The information field contains the value of the VRF or > table > > name... > > > > - There's no need to redefine the TLV in §5.3. > > > > (4) §5.4: "As defined in section 4.3 of [RFC7854]..." The quote comes > from > > §4.6. > > > > (5) §5.5 (Route Mirroring): "Route mirroring is not applicable to > Loc-RIB and > > Route Mirroring messages SHOULD be ignored." If not applicable...when > is it > > ok not to ignore the Route Mirroring messages? IOW, why is this behavior > > recommended and not required? > > > > (6) In general, the terminology used throughout the document is > well-known to > > BMP/BGP users but may not be to the average reader. Please add > references > > (most can be informational). These are some examples: > > > > - Please add a reference to rfc471 when introducing Loc-RIB/Adj-RIB-In. > > There's a mention in the Abstract about Loc-RIB, but that is not enough. > > > > - s/Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy/Post-Policy Adj-RIB-In/g > > That is how rfc7854 defines the term. Also, please add a reference on > first > > mention. > > > > - s/Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy/pre-policy Adj-RIB-In/g > > Same as above. > > > > - Add a reference for BGP-LS (rfc7752). > > > > - s/add-paths/ADD-PATH/g > > That is how rfc7911 uses the term. Also, please add a reference on first > > mention. > > > > - s/BGP-ID/BGP Identifier/g > > From rfc4271. rfc7854 uses "BGP ID". > > > > - Expand RD on first use. > > > > - Add a reference for "4octet ASN" (rfc6793). > > > > (7) [nits] > > > > s/after best-path selection/after best route selection > > That's the terminology used in rfc4271 > > > > s/build Adj-RIB-Out/build the Adj-RIB-Out > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > -- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra
- [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow… Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
- Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Tim Evens (tievens)
- Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Job Snijders
- Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Warren Kumari
- Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Job Snijders
- Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Warren Kumari
- Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana