Re: [Idr] Section 4.7 of RFC#7752 bis

Balaji Rajagopalan <balajir@juniper.net> Tue, 05 November 2019 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <balajir@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEDFB1201E5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:32:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=juniper.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 nV-ptRpnkwtb for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849E71201E4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108157.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xA58WFql027967; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:32:36 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=a2hilZVlP4gQZswophiqJcWBhJsQjqAVr9DbnmNBZJw=; b=Z/mc0HUK7n0aHpu8jJ3/Y5ru3tqUUF9uihtw2cK9zmQ9eKlC86v8V8LEDGvUz9atQ4OS yH+YrnD4Ze4GWLRHCf9/cmrt9EQwC3tLaswDdKy9sPEcsN4FN86Z/0Jow7HyNg/mafZE wRb/aVvh57Fb7vbYzznfyj4rc/6svpaL16v8x0YNrBolB8Xn7UwyuJCsb7ZT5MqhQ303 auni4Xsl4B70ctq/7+DLpHBrRDBmPoNuV/SAE3MNzrndWkGxtmUQtFiy0t3+Hxb5hQ45 WWytOL/8+tYZQIxWtciz2/PzhlTwqsRc2WvUak6kRXTL18HiHtL89o3FAC4AAHgoJBd4 OQ==
Received: from nam02-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02lp2058.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.58]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w30a8reak-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:32:35 -0800
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=oZWIgahRkgxX5CqylDtbAdfjGTk7h9N1IXPZkKnQ9Gq1/Ak0SyXMJwYWBlvve5u0Hl6XhrQsJE+Mvq1lH0BmjnFWGyTMyxdnD2pp5g+WQ5HvWiBUGGCtdaCJ+BPCz0qLGVIVUrT0MsUjf5XYmFQHtabeUTwWR07xn9FyWMnRYT8if5HFmVLnmeTk0Uz9TpJY4emzgaYZTEzXCCMGXtLdlONlAalJA2xKcUXe7Gec7beAUBS9UrJu/lbSpO85Ys9t0H0isOz2xUjmC7sW0L8dqMAFEp+buMUwcS5Osm4h1juhRMHdDzXsfjsbNJaKZWFTWfmJ/hJ+EOT0SdHCz0LTGA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=a2hilZVlP4gQZswophiqJcWBhJsQjqAVr9DbnmNBZJw=; b=lghmNNPpoeYtZjxwV2n1+fgmQH5EYJLngpMXqN34BQFPN5Et7MDKBBxPSPGVNwTY+/WRtJfJOgRatFPTHCEvAbbTv+1oiE33xE5u1gRIkmW+Hzu6jxg51Q0XjY5Oua6CLGmPvR8ZgKn71KIK3W4cjA+SE87YEi1EaRsUD0qeEiqGE5swIfbXsrRbBp+iK4h0LxrmsMkMbQURCSEkjjjjfB07pqK0GSmz58zpYhTbZPStngHGxUqYomnbrwSQVs/EnG8qMYsL/F2IKWi1wUiJ4xXfFfI1tQyNNWwvu2bvjhl0ysn026Wocuk98Zjs+any6zcyvNBCQk9cvhNA+9+WWQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
Received: from MN2PR05MB6189.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.178.243.224) by MN2PR05MB6944.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2430.16; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 08:32:33 +0000
Received: from MN2PR05MB6189.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::442b:7d87:46d7:da80]) by MN2PR05MB6189.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::442b:7d87:46d7:da80%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2430.013; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 08:32:33 +0000
From: Balaji Rajagopalan <balajir@juniper.net>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
CC: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Section 4.7 of RFC#7752 bis
Thread-Index: AQHVk7ORQ+PQmhOzhkmQg/whWt4afA==
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 08:32:33 +0000
Message-ID: <C5AE54F0-44F3-408C-875E-8B0D765B24C9@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_9784d817-3396-4a4f-b60c-3ef6b345fe55_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_9784d817-3396-4a4f-b60c-3ef6b345fe55_Name=Juniper Business Use Only; MSIP_Label_9784d817-3396-4a4f-b60c-3ef6b345fe55_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_9784d817-3396-4a4f-b60c-3ef6b345fe55_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_9784d817-3396-4a4f-b60c-3ef6b345fe55_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_9784d817-3396-4a4f-b60c-3ef6b345fe55_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_9784d817-3396-4a4f-b60c-3ef6b345fe55_ActionId=55d4724b-cdd4-46e8-b4ca-0000a8e6bc06; MSIP_Label_9784d817-3396-4a4f-b60c-3ef6b345fe55_SetDate=2019-11-05T07:22:02Z;
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1e.0.191013
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a7cbc18c-c26d-42f9-cd11-08d761cab46e
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR05MB6944:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR05MB694428474C39F738C4CB82A3AB7E0@MN2PR05MB6944.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0212BDE3BE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(376002)(189003)(199004)(2616005)(6506007)(6486002)(14454004)(53546011)(7736002)(186003)(6306002)(229853002)(6512007)(33656002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(86362001)(5660300002)(6246003)(6916009)(66446008)(66476007)(64756008)(66556008)(6116002)(76116006)(6436002)(91956017)(476003)(486006)(8936002)(54896002)(81166006)(8676002)(3846002)(316002)(478600001)(36756003)(99286004)(2906002)(9326002)(58126008)(25786009)(102836004)(66066001)(26005)(14444005)(4326008)(256004)(66946007)(81156014)(574754004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR05MB6944; H:MN2PR05MB6189.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: prU48t2AVkHZMWEK85ZsEstNq+Pf85AFiU/7/WxORLfWptIoI5g3jN81nmfUBjUYab6lya/G8noun2WGbT9eMwe9u4IAtmvQHxLu7IdKNbB+UzK+ydCwazXPrJkcpPeIcW4g9h9kwpl8sIdsj4ruyoHiO71ew1z/wewyL95e0Mzke6HwK/ucOFSSYs1oiZ19JlxLQCJi7uDolfrvbElBHzC/r6u4h5yAfQaFj9uIgn93dlDuImpVgTddsyfZJQ6zcxInOxr7IdpzsOXnNBbcaD8sHkU7OIWwCP7a6LN9BtN2Z9YroC2Yo6W3caz+QD0JQ5mDJ1K/pcyy83/11ngNNxiWjxwWJ+tOheCBsoH2iP6RBkeutMYKfTeyQkEoqqj1L6Cxd6JkFnz5Gpw903UNtW8XDvJ3oJxG0Ijvpz8zE564KKzKciEmpoavoy3tOybK
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C5AE54F044F3408C875E8B0D765B24C9junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a7cbc18c-c26d-42f9-cd11-08d761cab46e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Nov 2019 08:32:33.3753 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: EnyyRWTFpHIli86qkyeTWegV6rY9ayFBVbICqlNR6lS+UfGVKVXunXmA3XK/AUu3Ia12JoUqGyoRmxiUIbHnZQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR05MB6944
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,1.0.8 definitions=2019-11-05_02:2019-11-04,2019-11-05 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1908290000 definitions=main-1911050073
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8oON5QsrlmLe5na24RNd8M99TOc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Section 4.7 of RFC#7752 bis
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 08:32:45 -0000

Hi Ketan,

[Continuing the discussion that started during last call, but changed the subject, since last call has ended]

Thanks for your consideration.

If deployment experience has pointed to the necessity for more textual clarity on issues arising from lack of flooding, I agree with you that additional text would be helpful.

BTW, I’m not calling for rendering the proposed solution illegitimate. Rather, I was suggesting that the solution was legitimate even with RFC#7752. IOW, RFC#7752 already supports a wide range of behaviours of the originator, including the proposed solution.

Likewise, I’m also not aware of anything that would render illegal the use of ADD-PATH, regardless of inclusion or omission of the proposed solution.

Thus, both the solutions were legal with RFC#7752, and would remain so even with the proposed text.

What the proposed text DOES change is that it now makes it mandatory for the originator to withdraw links from unreachable nodes. I  still disagree with the mandatory aspect of the proposed solution.

While there may be consumers that benefit from the proposed behaviour of the originator, the originator cannot assume that no consumer application would be interested in the entries that it’s going to drop. I can imagine applications, such as visualization tools or cross-consistency topology checkers, that might want to receive these entries. These applications were realizable in RFC#7752, but the restrictive behaviour of the proposed solution makes it impossible for a consumer to know exactly what an originator is holding, even if it’s prepared to deal with dead nodes, or does not care about such situations.

IOW, the proposed text mandates a solution that was already legal as per RFC#7752, but forecloses formerly legal behaviours that might be useful. I don’t see any strong reason to presume the uselessness of the dropped entries, when the alternative of making it optional supports both behaviours.

So, my suggestion would be the following:

  *   Clearly describe the problem, as the current draft does
  *   Describe both the solutions (ADD-PATH & the current text), and make them both optional behaviours available to an originator

Such an approach would provide textual clarity on the tools available to solve the problem, without foreclosing behaviours that may be useful.

--
Balaji Rajagopalan

Hi Balaji,

Thanks for your review and your comments in improving this document.

The fact that apart from a few folks who have been involved in the development and deployment of BGP-LS, this problem was not evident to most people (until they actually hit those issues) warrants the inclusion of the text in the bis draft. I don’t  think the text you propose describes this problem scenario and it’s solution.

During the IETF at Montreal we spent a lot of time on this aspect and even presented the two options for handling the problem identified in this section. There was a lot of support for keeping things simple as described in the current version of the bis draft.

That said, we can poll again on the WG alias post adoption to take further inputs/suggestions from members on this aspect.

Thanks,
Ketan



From: Balaji Rajagopalan <balajir@juniper.net>;
Date: Monday, 19 August 2019 at 10:32 PM
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>;
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

Hi Sue & Authors,

As an implementor of RFC 7752, I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.

I have a comment on section 4.7, though.

Section 4.7 mandates withdrawal of link-state objects advertised by unreachable nodes. I’d suggest making this an optional behaviour of the originator. Originator not presuming consumer’s disinterest in certain entries would permit a wider range of applications.

If there is agreement that section 4.7 can be optional:

I don’t believe that the contents of section 4.7 merit a dedicated section. The last paragraph of section 1, reproduced below, offers plenty of leeway for an originator to choose what gets advertised. If this text is thought to be inadequate, an additional line or two in section 1 would suffice, IMHO.

“
A BGP speaker may apply configurable policy to the information that
   it distributes.  Thus, it may distribute the real physical topology
   from the LSDB or the TED.  Alternatively, it may create an abstracted
   topology, where virtual, aggregated nodes are connected by virtual
   paths.  Aggregated nodes can be created, for example, out of multiple
   routers in a Point of Presence (POP).  Abstracted topology can also
   be a mix of physical and virtual nodes and physical and virtual
   links.  Furthermore, the BGP speaker can apply policy to determine
   when information is updated to the consumer so that there is a
   reduction of information flow from the network to the consumers.
   Mechanisms through which topologies can be aggregated or virtualized
   are outside the scope of this document
“

--
Balaji Rajagopalan


From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>;
Organisation: Old Dog Consulting
Reply to: "adrian@olddog.co.uk"; <adrian@olddog.co.uk>;
Date: Friday, 16 August 2019 at 6:07 PM
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>;
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

Hi Sue,

I’m a co-author on this draft.

I agree that an update to 7752 is needed. Sort of regret that we didn’t get this right first time. On the other hand, turning the handle and getting an RFC out was the right thing to do 3.5 years ago, and revising our work is a good demonstration that it is implemented and relevant.

So yes, I support adoption and hope we can spend as long as it takes getting this polished.

Thanks,
Adrian

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 08 August 2019 20:31
To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>;
Subject: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

This begins a 2 week adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22/2019]

In your comments please indicate “support” or “no support”.

The chair and AD feel that a revision to RFC7752 is needed
to specify additional error handling.  Please consider
if this draft is a good place to start for this revision.

Cheerily, Susan Hares