[Idr] [draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] Question on explicit withdrawal of BGP-LS NLRI
Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com> Fri, 15 November 2019 08:55 UTC
Return-Path: <nandan@arista.com>
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 30D4D120119 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:55:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arista.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 9sOb9Wr1gicZ for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x231.google.com (mail-oi1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (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 33CBE12013B for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x231.google.com with SMTP id d22so1042463oic.7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:54:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arista.com; s=googlenew; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xolJYuFuuo8OO8toYFAWPRMV9RnDDnLlElBM0o+WpUE=; b=Ds//cOJXvr+xHVJoQIaCM8/IxTg2OVX/L+POmwwCXFJKZRIIzx63HqSNy3opIiMQ1l ZsojIYJX4t4oAsKfQeIp8FZqchRnANeoTZvM7yJMb33Co2lCWfxF6M7fsyTIMIlZJyKg 7XqFgob+X56hTYKy8kZjdKYK1ySWpfGpA1/Gs2zI48J8yFewO8qr+JDHod1WDFZEuwP7 k0H/En6l3jZHmDcSdem6uzoDmN3kvWQbma7BV7RAfirf3TJ+TZ2wu/kX2FNq8M6Kwf6e hZPF3M1PWfkcX15kPubrfWBg8f1aCzwStH7bBOIQXIc0wSvb2oiH9uOkaCtn61f0em0F k+Fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xolJYuFuuo8OO8toYFAWPRMV9RnDDnLlElBM0o+WpUE=; b=OdbkZCKhAD4SnuU1l+L7wyQY51bxgM5S6+x6gzHGGUGC41LpQzaBxKZ4HXEyHZFlgg +6jYL9wdbaX40Xg5YnTmyPgSneMjJ4pOizjnm0qriuORlosWwn/trwW5YycOA540x4Bp YAhzpg4CNtamSsm6qEtM8q4btvCOFvuz9gW+xFA2klFhK+x3Vz0eH0WoAydbsdOywCCN gxdyHZ/W0XNBhelevBtq/XrCE6aBN1J0/7yUEvRKucbSmCpt3r6J0cnQZCEiHqcE9nqo 4vzGmPnpqn+1s0Tb9d3sNUvbGnqk4hAB/JDIT2IFOS3/WshyUs9a+jGbKGO6ousd/I5J ZroQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXywcrf7P9L52txirCZVhQ1arbDKri15YJ8uuLd/liQC4AqZ+at EiNnbEkSEPtK2jw3+bhYShac/z/4+KJgtE/o7cSOfw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzsmK/JH5Ri8miBn+YBhcEG/rY9jBjU5Jt5ZfUc+GI318+W1tqnSN2Wl55rExPgH+28ol5rStHb9s9zE2d6iRM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:dbc3:: with SMTP id s186mr6803913oig.130.1573808097191; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:54:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:24:45 +0530
Message-ID: <CAE+itjeAoU9tXxoZg2sOYYOA94pCrRviUGeoQ43jvTzQhhwOnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Cc: Prakash Badrinarayanan <prakash@arista.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ct9MHHU6W65oo2g6eSDdh4DS5Y4>
Subject: [Idr] [draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] Question on explicit withdrawal of BGP-LS NLRI
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:55:00 -0000
Hi folks, I'm trying to understand what the following text is actually mandating: >>>> When adding, removing or modifying a TLV/sub-TLV from a Link-State NLRI, the BGP-LS Producer MUST withdraw the old NLRI by including it in the MP_UNREACH_NLRI. Not doing so can result in duplicate and in- consistent link-state objects hanging around in the BGP-LS table <<<< Is it simply about ensuring that the previous incarnation of the NLRI is withdrawn (or) is it also mandating some ordering requirements between when the old incarnation is withdrawn and the new one advertised. For example, if there's a link nlri say NLRI1 = { local node descriptor { asn = 100 igp router ID = 1111.1111.1111 } remote node descriptor { asn = 100 igp router ID = 2222.2222.2222 } link descriptor { ipv4 Intf address = 1.1.1.1 ipv4 neighbor address = 1.1.1.2 } } Which say subsequently changes such that NLR12 = { local node descriptor { asn = 100 igp router ID = 1111.1111.1111 } remote node descriptor { asn = 100 igp router ID = 2222.2222.2222 } link descriptor { ipv4 Intf address = 4.4.4.4 ipv4 neighbor address = 4.4.4.5 } } Note that the interface address changed above in NLRI2 In this case, is it sufficient to ensure that a MP_REACH_NLRI is sent with NLRI1 and an MP_UNREACH_NLRI is sent with NLRI1 in _any_ order or is that text mandating something stricter? Do both MP_REACH_NLRI=NLRI2 and MP_UNREACH_NLRI=NLRI1 need to be sent in the same UPDATE message or the MP_UNREACH_NLRI has to be sent before the MP_REACH_NLRI if sent in different UPDATE messages? Thanks, Nandan
- [Idr] [draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] Question on exp… Nandan Saha
- Re: [Idr] [draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] Question on… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] [draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] Question on… Nandan Saha