Re: [Idr] draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability-00

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 16 May 2015 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7642E1B2A6C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 23:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 mnNo-bMvmll8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 23:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) (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 3DBCD1B2A60 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2015 23:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obcus9 with SMTP id us9so92525748obc.2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2015 23:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3hfO7h//wHga1ViC16Jtmj4kBjeAnm/WyjnpizzksWs=; b=VeGa39jgNv255IPvPJsEflUfvLUkuBg56DLvPqDk6MKnhO0/ttiASGMY2Zm3vc/T2c wWZYpCbQcIra5OtioaNaBtxwmhBJ5saBRCWB06GJvcPkVjjVq7tvYrMyJh6SDYlU2fsC 9ElPoK3VK7N68GbGw26HHviFNB/vkbtKBQVuftBISSJOsdT7O6yioi7beCHbXUx/IvvH ctDmiHCppztkv+K0Xp+LHbFqKyd63FWd0tMVgKAanAMNvN9uf8yHuNaeKce57JssDwV0 78TSWWqq8dVdeXaLjarVf7YnXVWkM7PV1XPNJ7++k+GhGKmckQ3bmOCyXee6W28Ge4K6 mjFg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.115.167 with SMTP id jp7mr11478717obb.21.1431757665707; Fri, 15 May 2015 23:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.202.179.193 with HTTP; Fri, 15 May 2015 23:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABg5FUV5Z+S_m6V7=dB_cuOZpDV-MS_cV+mhwERtjaNCiNfT2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANL=f0h9ZV+SPr+2vcx2dEk4O9MxBAZJEU7xgHZDC=ep2g2r-g@mail.gmail.com> <m2bnhlwaov.wl%randy@psg.com> <20150516015819.5849234.74476.67011@gmail.com> <CANL=f0gAfs9f-Jt7r3bxMfB7f3Ta+funv8nvmkiCmFsQfGHTcg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERmY46GHLJUhi5PzwyVJ4Wcns_R11QXC=oLMzAXrYi-v2g@mail.gmail.com> <CABg5FUV5Z+S_m6V7=dB_cuOZpDV-MS_cV+mhwERtjaNCiNfT2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 08:27:45 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xLb7UYoz0levmC82JfzylEBzVyQ
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmCpjbBmNAeFyNm6_KTWtOB41Zge559O4jbtEjwKG+yXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Dinesh Dutt <ddutt@cumulusnetworks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0115f10611b00a05162d0f3d"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tjs5pPHaKmDFxqerEoiyrTWwk8>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 06:27:49 -0000

Hi Dinesh,

Q1 - how do you ping physical interface not a loopback

Q2 - how about lookup on bgp rtr id instead LL address to get the name ?

Cheers,
R.

On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Dinesh Dutt <ddutt@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robert@raszuk.net');>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel & Dinesh,
>>
>> I very much like the intention, but have a concern how it would simplify
>> troubleshooting in practice ...
>>
>> Imagine we exchange the names in new capability when session comes up so
>> we list it in summary output instead of link local address. But when you
>> try to trace or ping that name (from pc or router) your local or global DNS
>> will return not the LL address but most likely loopback so the results will
>> be rather of questionable value.
>>
>
> I'm confused. Why would we send a hostname in this capability that is
> different from the one assigned to loopback ? Within the DC at least,
> people don't advertise link addresses at all, only the loopback.  So, the
> hostname exchanged in the capability would be the same as the one returned
> by traceroute/ping.
>
> Dinesh
>
>
>> Would you not see this as a problem ? I hope you did not intended to just
>> cover the cosmetic nature of few show commands which I must agree with
>> others is rather a legacy way to operate the network these days anyway ;)).
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> R.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Daniel Walton <dwalton@cumulusnetworks.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dwalton@cumulusnetworks.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> Many of our customers use a Clos architecture and bgp peer to the IPv6
>>> LL address of every directly connected router.  To avoid configuring
>>> neighbor statements with LL addresses we support a "neighbor swpX
>>> interface" command ("swpX" is the default notation for an interface name in
>>> cumulus linux).  We then peer to the LL address on the other end of the
>>> swpX link (we only support this for point-to-point links).
>>>
>>> When you run commands like "show ip bgp summary" you see a list of
>>> interface names instead of IP addresses. Typically if you are loopback
>>> peering you either become familiar with "10.0.0.1 is Chicago" because you
>>> see 10.0.0.1 in the 'show ip bgp summ' output of several different routers
>>> or you could use DNS to do a lookup on 10.0.0.1 and put the hostname in the
>>> output.  When every box is peering to LL addresses though ("swpX" for short
>>> for us) you can't easily tell who that peer is and you can't use DNS
>>> because they LL addresses
>>>
>>> *Before*
>>>
>>> leaf-11# show ip bgp summ
>>> BGP router identifier 6.0.0.5, local AS number 65101
>>> BGP table version 25
>>> RIB entries 33, using 3960 bytes of memory
>>> Peers 6, using 100 KiB of memory
>>> Peer groups 1, using 56 bytes of memory
>>>
>>> Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down
>>>  State/PfxRcd
>>> swp1            4 65000     196     198        0    0    0 00:02:51
>>>    9
>>> swp2            4 65000     195     200        0    0    0 00:02:51
>>>    9
>>> swp3            4 65000     197     200        0    0    0 00:02:51
>>>    9
>>> swp4            4 65000     198     200        0    0    0 00:02:51
>>>    9
>>> swp5            4 65201     207     200        0    0    0 00:02:51
>>>    2
>>> swp6            4 65202     210     201        0    0    0 00:02:52
>>>    2
>>>
>>> Total number of neighbors 6
>>> leaf-11#
>>>
>>> spine-3# show ip bgp summ
>>> BGP router identifier 6.0.0.15, local AS number 65000
>>> BGP table version 19
>>> RIB entries 33, using 3960 bytes of memory
>>> Peers 8, using 134 KiB of memory
>>> Peer groups 1, using 56 bytes of memory
>>>
>>> Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down
>>>  State/PfxRcd
>>> swp5            4 65101     675     675        0    0    0 00:10:49
>>>    5
>>> swp6            4 65101     678     676        0    0    0 00:10:50
>>>    5
>>> swp7            4 65101     667     668        0    0    0 00:10:48
>>>    5
>>> swp8            4 65101     676     676        0    0    0 00:10:49
>>>    5
>>> swp9            4 65102     701     692        0    0    0 00:11:04
>>>    5
>>> swp10           4 65102     701     692        0    0    0 00:11:04
>>>    5
>>> swp11           4 65102     701     691        0    0    0 00:11:04
>>>    5
>>> swp12           4 65102     701     692        0    0    0 00:11:04
>>>    5
>>>
>>> Total number of neighbors 8
>>> spine-3#
>>> spine-3#
>>>
>>>
>>> *After*
>>>
>>> leaf-11# show ip bgp summ
>>> BGP router identifier 6.0.0.5, local AS number 65101
>>> BGP table version 25
>>> RIB entries 33, using 3960 bytes of memory
>>> Peers 6, using 100 KiB of memory
>>> Peer groups 1, using 56 bytes of memory
>>>
>>> Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down
>>>  State/PfxRcd
>>> spine-1(swp1)   4 65000     211     213        0    0    0 00:03:07
>>>    9
>>> spine-2(swp2)   4 65000     210     215        0    0    0 00:03:07
>>>    9
>>> spine-3(swp3)   4 65000     212     215        0    0    0 00:03:07
>>>    9
>>> spine-4(swp4)   4 65000     213     215        0    0    0 00:03:07
>>>    9
>>> tor-11(swp5)    4 65201     222     215        0    0    0 00:03:07
>>>    2
>>> tor-12(swp6)    4 65202     225     216        0    0    0 00:03:08
>>>    2
>>>
>>> Total number of neighbors 6
>>> leaf-11#
>>>
>>> spine-3# show ip bgp summ
>>> BGP router identifier 6.0.0.15, local AS number 65000
>>> BGP table version 19
>>> RIB entries 33, using 3960 bytes of memory
>>> Peers 8, using 134 KiB of memory
>>> Peer groups 1, using 56 bytes of memory
>>>
>>> Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down
>>>  State/PfxRcd
>>> leaf-11(swp5)   4 65101    1119    1119        0    0    0 00:18:13
>>>    5
>>> leaf-12(swp6)   4 65101    1122    1120        0    0    0 00:18:14
>>>    5
>>> leaf-13(swp7)   4 65101    1110    1111        0    0    0 00:18:12
>>>    5
>>> leaf-14(swp8)   4 65101    1119    1119        0    0    0 00:18:13
>>>    5
>>> leaf-21(swp9)   4 65102    1144    1135        0    0    0 00:18:28
>>>    5
>>> leaf-22(swp10)  4 65102    1144    1135        0    0    0 00:18:28
>>>    5
>>> leaf-23(swp11)  4 65102    1144    1134        0    0    0 00:18:28
>>>    5
>>> leaf-24(swp12)  4 65102    1144    1135        0    0    0 00:18:28
>>>    5
>>>
>>> Total number of neighbors 8
>>> spine-3#
>>>
>>> It makes troubleshooting much easier.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agree.. adding code for no real operational benefit
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>>>>   Original Message
>>>> From: Randy Bush
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 10:52 PM
>>>> To: Daniel Walton
>>>> Cc: idr wg; Dinesh Dutt
>>>> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability-00
>>>>
>>>> one more unneeded place for things to go wrong
>>>>
>>>> randy
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Idr mailing list
>>>> Idr@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>