Re: [Idr] Possibility of empty Link Descriptors in BGP-LS?

Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com> Sun, 03 November 2019 15:40 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 3629A1200F1 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 07:40:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 jZ02aYsVjyWg for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 07:40:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (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 555961200FA for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 07:40:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 77so7930806oti.12 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 07:40:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arista.com; s=googlenew; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YFcnfN4wMIiGkdvjYF0H+QPg8LP4hKHTUHySnYIo3CE=; b=UPwkFkKZJkV8G8T82gJ6huK9SzF+qck5w/et+1mRQzbB1cEtmpqeqyJcYINtawnHGC c4OcKZhhLpxPtFwOkRNH/ju3uE6q+0vi0gA4sqQ/sXFR8DnaYMUSD0TtccALU4LShuXG ra1FFzryxWoia9FvyXVpvvLQVSt9y4QbcbDq4a7KfLiu37xwkiAYYwh3IH7aPvxNgVzC /AjnAHG35FwV+N9mZLt+qwRxyebU2LkM/Awm5nIwwQMiPktp6Zxau+3Dqvy7YaQJvzwu jP3MpXEMGdO6/ZTkL/HPTyo8QWQeuWGMAgwG/aw5PEcgVbECfWoGxTLqNnYHkbc7+IV0 8tZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YFcnfN4wMIiGkdvjYF0H+QPg8LP4hKHTUHySnYIo3CE=; b=fiEmcSFzF/o10ue1br6dzr0PxWDvE61lYbGa7D9LtpeY8MJ1nRyhJqx5w6VmDp+BpA Ma/cP3zK82bkoua1ur+0m92CdjeUf9OV3GQEurw8UCsEF9y+bsFlkrPpaaJU3RS6y3gu QT1o3l22PzDxf+SIAGrInZ7W4Fgr3zcqGZxokK/tGlTFczMQMZURVEz1vP4jTPt43+xK 1RfD0ILQ0Oc6K2rTNkHg/z3GqEYrUba979tgtvBNRDNt6nf4bQcq890unc1JbZVfFT0Y xuOG+qQwGivtG0egWWHfIgVaciKEkYSFnFVJ5uauSXcCdksDvo5+pn+pPVK2GAKWZRxc 492A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU72xqASIq9iCAiWapdMKN6BxSP8+mqLw60urMQ0FIwzG0mkrsD txzbV6BpibvcDofOC2x4R/7ZxcrymhyJhF91e6iUtA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqznYfKEXCWSp0BFUecj+DlfdXSF4RCVSQH5pbWPM/tvuiAFxNv7JWF6JTKJzhIjvLewuWnO/8R5iH+3uK5Lhb4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1587:: with SMTP id i7mr16143346otr.321.1572795653386; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 07:40:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAE+itjfxH1tmgmfOAwFmT3n-5s_Zu_nVqTjybbp=9L1F1Wea7w@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR11MB15416D84C646DDCA17DFB777C1AB0@CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAE+itjfBRL0S7=N2kzHOsHDrcPL-OANw3tZfDiguXw0SupBLzw@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR11MB15415121B84FA55CB4F0B8E6C1950@CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAE+itjfPYdRoj6WFmDn1NF8wpGn2HH76m9gqirWaQa0gDipq4g@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR11MB1541625F0FDC2BBA135917B3C1620@CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1541625F0FDC2BBA135917B3C1620@CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 21:10:41 +0530
Message-ID: <CAE+itjfTTUsgYRF5=TcS=xQm1Zacnjacy5DiNmvB1g_GFVEkxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis@ietf.org" <draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Prakash Badrinarayanan <prakash@arista.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039a38905967306f2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FZutRNxadMOipMs2o5HPsEgc4-c>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Possibility of empty Link Descriptors in BGP-LS?
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 15:40:57 -0000

Thank you Ketan for making the changes. The 02 diff looks fine to me.

Thanks,
Nandan

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nandan,
>
>
>
> An updated version has been posted to address your comments as discussed
> below.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-02
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com>
> *Sent:* 09 October 2019 21:21
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; Prakash
> Badrinarayanan <prakash@arista.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Possibility of empty Link Descriptors in BGP-LS?
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:52 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Nandan,
>
>
>
> How about adding the following text in Sec 4.2.2?
>
>
>
> The TLVs/sub-TLVs corresponding to the interface addresses and/or the
> local/remote identfiers may not always be signaled in the IGPs unless their
> advertisement is enabled specifically. In such cases, a BGP-LS Producer may
> not be able to generate valid Link NLRIs for such link advertisements from
> the IGPs.
>
> Sounds good!
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com>
> *Sent:* 16 September 2019 10:11
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; Prakash
> Badrinarayanan <prakash@arista.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Possibility of empty Link Descriptors in BGP-LS?
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>     Thank you for your patience. I thought I had replied to this, but
> somehow hadn't.
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:31 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <
> ketant@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Nandan,
>
> You are correct that an ISIS implementation (in non-TE/SR) environment
> will not advertise the necessary link descriptors without which it will not
> be possible to describe links completely. It is not just about empty link
> descriptors, but when there are parallel links, they will end up
> overwriting each other's attributes in BGP-LS as those NLRIs would get
> mixed up. IMHO it does not serve much purpose advertising such links via
> BGP-LS.
>
> What text would you suggest we add in the BGP-LS specification for this?
>
> Something along the lines that a BGP-LS producer may not be able to
> generate valid link NLRIs in the absence of the required sub-TLVs in the
> IGP. I'm mostly thinking from the point of view of guiding operators that
> the IGP needs to be configured appropriately.
>
> I'm not fully in agreement about leaving out such links. In the case
> there's only one p2p link between devices we'll simply be losing
> information in BGP-LS, since it's possible to identify such a link
> uniquely. (Though it's an academic discussion since most deployments are
> likely to use bgp-ls for TE)
>
> In anycase, I don't feel too strong about adding new text in case you feel
> it's obvious from the rest of the text.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com>
> Sent: 20 August 2019 21:48
> To: draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org
> Cc: Prakash Badrinarayanan <prakash@arista.com>om>; Ketan Talaulikar
> (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> Subject: Possibility of empty Link Descriptors in BGP-LS?
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm wondering whether some text needs to be added to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01#section-4.2.2
> for the case where neither the ipv4/6 address sub tlvs nor link/remote
> identifiers are present in the IGP's LSP/LSA.
> For IS-IS specifically, it seems to me that an IS-IS implementation (in a
> non-TE) scenario is free to leave out the ipv4/6 interface/neighbor address
> sub-tlvs based on https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5305#section-3.2, and
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5305#section-3.3. The link/remote link
> identifiers also appear optional.
>
> In such a case, the link descriptor in the link nlri will be empty which
> is problematic in the case where there are multiple links between 2 nodes
> as there's no way to distinguish between the different links.
>
> Thanks,
> Nandan
>
>