Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bmp-rel - Handling RFC7606 events

Paolo Lucente <paolo@ntt.net> Mon, 22 January 2024 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <paolo@ntt.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 0F3A5C14F6A8 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:07:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19tLVODNwnhO for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail4.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail.gin.ntt.net [128.241.192.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40874C14F5EA for <grow@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:07:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.52] (244.red-79-153-69.dynamicip.rima-tde.net [79.153.69.244]) by mail4.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C39AEEE0115; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 02:07:00 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <39b8f2da-8dcb-4c59-99ba-2ba9c7cc2189@ntt.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 03:06:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Paolo Lucente <paolo@ntt.net>
To: Ahmed.Elhassany@swisscom.com, grow@ietf.org, camilo.cardona@global.ntt
References: <82700A61-1926-459A-9F49-DD0FFC55F224@swisscom.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <82700A61-1926-459A-9F49-DD0FFC55F224@swisscom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/oQtOqEd97b8iy1me6Z2HjDBjf0M>
Subject: Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bmp-rel - Handling RFC7606 events
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 02:07:11 -0000

Hi Ahmed,

Thanks for your comment & agree on the importance of having these captured.

I think Path Marking and REL are the places where these markings / 
events would be appropriately reported for. Also, being REL definition 
only at its beginning, we can adjust to fit any additional use-case.

Should i properly decode your underlying ask, i may read a couple of things:

1) if some withdraws are issued, like for cases #2 and #3, we should 
have the code-points in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv

2) Probably the structure of the REL message should be made more 
flexible: it now requires a BGP PDU TLV for every event whereas maybe 
for certain events that would fall more under the feedback-loop use-case 
than the insight one (like #1 and #4), a BGP PDU may not be required

Thoughts?

Paolo


On 12/01/2024 14:57, Ahmed.Elhassany@swisscom.com wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I’ve been going over draft-ietf-grow-bmp-rel and it does provide an 
> excellent way to provide additional visibility into the BGP process.
> 
> However, I noticed it doesn’t cover the cases in RFC 7606. RFC 7606 
> refines that update error handling in RFC 4271 and classifies update 
> errors handling approaches into 4 categories:
> 
>  1. Session Reset (as original in RFC 4271 and that will be caught in
>     BMP using the BGP Notification message)
>  2. AFI/SAFI disable
>  3. Treat-as-withdraw
>  4. Attribute-discard
> 
> My guess for cases 2 and 3, if local rib monitoring is enabled BMP will 
> report a withdraw, without a reason of why. For case 4, not sure if that 
> will be reported in BMP.
> 
> Probably these events need to be monitored by BMP, since they impact the 
> routing and can be silent (except vendor specific logging). I’m not sure 
> if draft-ietf-grow-bmp-rel is the best place or we need an additional 
> document to expand further the list of supported events, any feedback is 
> welcome.
> 
> Best,
> 
> -Ahmed
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow