Re: [Idr] WG adoption call - draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10 - (11/10/2023 to 11/24/2023)

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>]

Hi Igor,

Please find some responses inline. KV>

Thanks
Kaliraj


Juniper Business Use Only
From: Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 11:45 PM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>
Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call - draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10 - (11/10/2023 to 11/24/2023)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Kaliraj,

Thanks for your response! In general, I agree with the list above and personally find your work promising. I just want to clarify several things. Please, see my inline.

чт, 16 нояб. 2023 г. в 05:14, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
Hi Igor, thanks for your comments.

This MNH draft applies to single path carrying an ordered set of one or more nexthops.
[IM] That's about outgoing messages I believe. I asked about the sources of it. Let's say, we have two paths for the same destination: x.x.x.x/y {1;2;3} and x.x.x.x/y {5} from different peers (and with the different next-hops as well). A node selects the latter due to its shorter AS_PATH, would it be possible to propagate the route further with the MNH attribute and both next-hops?
    KV> Good question. The node may readvertise the best path with a MNH containing the nexthop (EP1) of best path as active leg, and nexthop (EP2) of inactive path as backup leg. E.g.,

        MNH-X:
          +NFI-X <Primary, Num-Nexthops=2>
                +FI-X <Action=Push, RelativePref=1>
                     -FA-U <Type=1, EP=EP1>
                +FI-Y <Action=Push, RelativePref=2>
                     -FA-X <Type=1, EP=EP2>

Yes Addpath advertises multiple paths along with their attributes, but only if they have unique nexthops. So as I see it, the real use of Addpath is also to advertise multiple nexthops. But Addpath does not specify any relationship/order in the nexthops sent, and uses high RIB-out/in scale, because of using all attributes.

Conceptually, if the sending BGP speaker is able to come up with “what kind of multiple-nexthop forwarding” is needed at the receiving nodes, then that can be conveyed in a single route update in a more expressive manner, instead of carrying all paths to receiver and further consuming CPU in multipath computation at all receiving-nodes. MNH just provides that expressiveness on the wire. How the sending speaker arrives at the forwarding-info to be sent in MNH (ECMP, Ordered fallback, WECMP, etc) - there can be more than one ways to figure that out, based on different usecases - as we are discovering. This just opens up a BGP based standard API to the box’s BGP RIB.
[IM] Thanks for the additional clarification.

And about the point on carrying labels in unlabled families: nodes not supporting MNH will just ignore it. Only those that have configured an AF to use MNH will use it. So I think there is no surprise element to any old BGP speakers receiving the label/MNH. If a receiving node that understands MNH does not understand enough of the contents to safely use it, they don’t use it (‘Attribute Discard’ approach). But I agree, the error handling will evolve as the draft matures.
[IM] I'm worried about the approach when we define some new attributes and significantly change the very nature of an address family. Where does this road lead us? I consider an address family not only as an encoding container but also as some semantics behind it, and it looks like additional attributes can alter it in any possible way.
   KV> I get your concern. I consider an address family as having a core business logic. And these encoding enhancements should not alter that business logic. They should just help in achieving that business logic better.
   KV> IOW, encoding deficiencies should not come in the way of achieving the business logic better. I agree with you that the core business logic of an AF should not be diluted. But I also feel giving any AF a little more expressability
   KV> should not hurt its business logic.

I feel the flexibility (carrying labels in unlabled families) itself is beneficial. Even today we have usecases (LU-EPE, 6PE, 4PE) where we want to impose labels on unlabeled service routes by resolving over labeled families. And some of these usecases (6PE, 4PE) require redistribution between Internet-families and Labeled-AFs which is risky. Using MNH allows safe walled gardens with consistent service, transport AF-layers, avoiding such redistribtions. And, I agree that interaction/precedence of the label carried in MNH with the label carried in other places on the route need to be specified.
[IM] At this very moment, I can't see where this flexibility is justified. It more looks like the approach to get rid of the LU.
KV> I feel having transport layer families (like LU) and resolving service families over them has the advantage of indirection and BGP PIC.
KV> So I think we cannot get rid of LU as a transport-family, unless the indirection is provided by some other means.
     KV> Its core business logic is to carry transport end-points.
     KV> Having flexibility to carry label on service-routes does not mean we need to eliminate a transport layer family. it just allows additional expressability for AFs at each layer.
I also don't think that 4PE/6PE require any redistribution between AFIs, no one requires us to disseminate service routes as labeled ones, it is enough only for their next-hops. In other words, all the described cases are already solved by the LU.
KV> I suppose you are mentioning the LU-EPE (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-15) way (nexthop-unchanged on SAFI 1 routes) of doing 6PE? I agree in that way, redistribution between AFs is not needed.
KV> If the same approach needs to be used with nexthop-self on SAFI 1 routes, it may need multiple loopbacks, one to advertise explicit-null, and another to advertise implicit-null.

KV> But in mechanisms described in rfc4798 or in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mishra-idr-v4-islands-v6-core-4pe-06.html#section-7.4, AFI redistribution is needed. SAFI 1  routes are redistributed into SAFI 4.
KV> This dilutes the business logic of these AFs. Ability to carrying explicit-null in SAFI 1 using MNH helps with these scenarios, by not diluting SAFI 4 business logic to carry service routes. Thanks.


Thanks
Kaliraj







Juniper Business Use Only
From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 11:45 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call - draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10 - (11/10/2023 to 11/24/2023)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hello folks,

I have some questions. First, it is unclear whether this draft applies to several paths and their next-hop addresses or a single path and its potential next-hop addresses. The text, especially in Section 3, refers to the Add-Paths mechanism as today's alternative, but Add-Paths allows us to propagate several paths without losing any attributes.
Second, the draft specifies that for unlabeled families there can be a labeled next-hop attached via the new attribute. I think that moment should be carefully considered by the WG. From my side, it is strange to advertise any labels to a receiver that does not expect that via families that are not about that.

Thank you!

пт, 10 нояб. 2023 г. в 13:19, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
This begins a WG adoption call for draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10.txt.

Each author should reply to this message with a message
that indicates whether you know of any IPR on this topic.

During your consideration,  please consider:


a.       Are there any errors or problems with this specification?

b.      Will this specification aid operational networks?

Cheerily, Sue Hares
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EqDZ5Xgy6P1r1DqauJ3-G_fdixf-M42OMPDJ41fgj9c3Cgs3EuxCPdUgGTckEw2m2hSbX7P6jwCMDhXb1FPb$>