Re: [Idr] Can one Destination Address appear in both Tunnel Encap Attribute and in MP_REACH_NLRI ?

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 23 October 2019 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 D6C2F120806 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.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 ZMVbBqS3Z4P5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (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 ED5751201DB for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id p10so18375257qkg.8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+RxHO3J994+BxIJ73Typjn9PlXmhv7S61UcBRHNqXG8=; b=Gb3OIEaOejv/I6FC8zATFYupn2XXeBiB/wkkofsQFOO/Dt945o1AeGu924sHHYgkn/ rSEnldyDdOUacoLxvD9jgkBsmpIiU4teCpPwqugK13AH/+zlGd1NAv593MzLnO2KCfmF I/ReNz97YuSYjzbwyslLyffsdiPqdMbeYp2DuOAWXZORwDF5LZqk6aFQBJu0hv5AMPC0 JGvwBnz1Ub35ngB1k0R7O+YO5T+Y5vOmYMomn570iHh3NSLqfs72Pr/sIFhxzz88V/Jv Ubi3x/wRx8lxF2ciEBKdKqRykpHO4CYIPqNs6gYj3MBEHTbHVJ53yNhFbl8dH045bfbp PThg==
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=+RxHO3J994+BxIJ73Typjn9PlXmhv7S61UcBRHNqXG8=; b=f9/NCcJiStzqQ/+0Ph1TH2DE8Bjqpx9flrgtCKYPLvCgPkMq3c38P0peGNLhWsfrvz OZou3LafLX1huwJpbWHHU1ThLSss+44KyadppIilwqkVpv8VkRJEE1eI+zeJ0w+HF8jD GM0wJ0/lyAyHycR2SpwKsNZ/uu7azTipuWBydVMPcGHIyOZFPzkGUKFcybozGiZZMwRh mYxYoKS8Z7sjEEBBIUiubg9Sltq+K8gEYQd8LF47ZDfi4qBYEPLYB6BwrqbSaaFzkmUb Q6moxd1kIhx5jP7lQHsV+VnSdnETDMKy+nJEBjAv6NfBXVwZ0OfOz09jsesPfvJ5Ovq7 ogwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVjngcl+Y1PJzAqi6cL/9TxLDeZz1SfEzRpn0ke9/K1eR0/X8rc 4gCfYbS3ui+9yuPQhfAdZKQRdqJnYnhq6gvvA41nDw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxOfSAyeBtndmq6pbRaoyidWv5nCo+ZwljwtMoqVWbfw4ajEpvpHmf2L2Avy5ppUxLST7CEMqDYvChiz2i/yNk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:6bc:: with SMTP id i28mr6117211qkh.219.1571796920976; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR13MB3582A1E1FE3441CDD54A101985950@MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <78F7A474-6F86-4EA3-93A3-001B4E2C2116@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMGqKj=zKbws92ni1fL2O-So=dbcW-mb02uRnQ+G55xm_w@mail.gmail.com> <0B48E5E7-3A1F-45C0-ACF9-B9A0FA323ED4@juniper.net> <BN8PR13MB2628AB4B6E3AC7EE6799A33985680@BN8PR13MB2628.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR13MB2628AB4B6E3AC7EE6799A33985680@BN8PR13MB2628.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 22:15:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOj+MME7QnYOiRA276UghkJvBwhK4r9mudNxuJruwrtYP-2spw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
Cc: Srihari Sangli <ssangli@juniper.net>, Srihari Sangli <ssangli=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000225b1005958a7d24"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GVQGTwqIZkiKPsFr7lMAKchQ6Fk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Can one Destination Address appear in both Tunnel Encap Attribute and in MP_REACH_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: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 02:15:24 -0000

Hi Linda,

Yes your interpretation is correct.

Thx
R.

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 16:25 Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com> wrote:

> Srihari and Robert,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the discussion.
>
>
>
> Your explanation indicates that the tunnel information described in Tunnel
> Path Attributes are applicable to all the NLRI listed in the MP-NLRI Path
> Attributes, correct?
>
> For example, D1/D2/D3/D4 all have R2 as Next Hop, and R2 supports GRE and
> VxLAN.  The Update from R2 will have D1, D2, D3, D4 listed in the MP-NLRI
> (code= 14), and GRE tunnel & VxLAN tunnel listed under the Tunnel Attribute
> (code = 23).
>
>
>
> When R1 receives the UPDATE from R2, R1 can assume that packets to D1, D2,
> D3, D4 can use either VxLAN or GRE. Is it correct?
>
>
>
> So if R2 needs to specifically indicate GRE for D1, VxLAN for D2, D3, and
> IPinIP for D4, then R2 needs to send 3 separate UPDATE messages. Is it
> correct?
>
>
>
> Thank you very much.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Srihari Sangli <ssangli@juniper.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:08 AM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>; Srihari Sangli <ssangli=
> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>om>; idr@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] Can one Destination Address appear in both Tunnel
> Encap Attribute and in MP_REACH_NLRI ?
>
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My reading of Linda's point was a question regarding the case where for
> prefix A NLRI points to
>
> next hop NH_1 but tunnel endpoint says go to NH_2.
>
>
>
> Is such update still valid ?
>
>
>
> Has tunnel encapsulation attribute power to "overrule" BGP next hop from
> MP_REACH ?
>
>
>
>
>
> The draft in Section 5 explains this. If the update has a valid Tunnel
> Encapsulation attribute and if any of the tunnel(s) is considered to be
> feasible, then it MUST use the tunnel. That means in your example, such an
> update is valid and NH_2 should be used.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps. Thanks.
>
>
>
> srihari…
>
>
>
>
>
>