Return-Path: 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 E53803A1582; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 21:54:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.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 2_au3uA3eHXg; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 21:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr750139.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.75.139]) (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 863A23A157E; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 21:54:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; =?utf-8?q?b=3DIl5qwvbcKQPRxAqK9W4nxNDRUCvrd1Tevrtw/6okfsDmrMm10Ijfm+iyVpGiZ?= =?utf-8?q?rR7stxnGsAqhR0qFBr1oc7agPdIQm64OcaFfWqzz5sEhjbz1u1h08DvtkTSEZR4VH?= =?utf-8?q?VtAHwzCIpOXFf5VdzBC3d5uk8aCVa7DhpG4pNHip3Dr3+qFdaMSuI1rjVpwi+pwiw?= =?utf-8?q?pStoCHVCNn/cqUQYEu2xZFm95EMLRqxiRPrCySmZ6WPM7T4JcpUL/Of8u6aiBIYYl?= =?utf-8?q?ERtPDNL0ub9znZltq5OuAr23XEc2olUN3w0gnRbc9i7GKcZLsXB6ES6ngx66PlBXW?= =?utf-8?q?cOM00gwSloQO2a/Q49NiA=3D=3D?= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; =?utf-8?q?h=3DFrom=3ADate=3ASubject=3AMessage-ID=3ACont?= =?utf-8?q?ent-Type=3AMIME-Version=3AX-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck=3B?= =?utf-8?q?bh=3DwqCP7VVGEwTljeHeXvPJQTezy8cj6+68VKvi8Hr5vS8=3D=3B_b=3DR1dUx+?= =?utf-8?q?+EkL4mF3yHXgIYJEUq0EbXcVYlP6CW0uwzzmx1e9OQ2CDBM/7DqrDqXMoATzPkNxe?= =?utf-8?q?Y3BA759xuUy3FgOqi1ebO9skKVNofuGYwcE+e8wepUDpap61hVS34DiWU+mPr5z+Z?= =?utf-8?q?yY6YsHtjUnVqSOEvd7CCNvw6zAPVnunc9DR5Dx3FNc028nqwrQlUmu6Cx9jISUYie?= =?utf-8?q?KzXVH6+UlXPVamd6iDsG36/BnCUyfhY1sCaswsR66oYIi8TefbuOSl/PBlnWL8efP?= =?utf-8?q?pakxfKCTh1LgehOPHvu15h3dq02tI1Aq6pHW/fmyNYshVwilq1aZqr0UUx3XhSV+P?= =?utf-8?q?HlFHTc1CE8w=3D=3D?= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=futurewei.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=futurewei.com; dkim=pass header.d=futurewei.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; =?utf-8?q?h=3DFrom=3ADate=3ASubject=3AMessage-ID=3AContent-Typ?= =?utf-8?q?e=3AMIME-Version=3AX-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck=3B?= =?utf-8?q?bh=3DwqCP7VVGEwTljeHeXvPJQTezy8cj6+68VKvi8Hr5vS8=3D=3B_b=3DdWwUnj?= =?utf-8?q?5sWq1SaVfiOVcnHdak4Va977ADHDSnwaXNNexp4r0nt9yeYIVtO6A8LIZvUet2eDm?= =?utf-8?q?pwAKNbdMdxkCIfFTh+X6+1Xv6IZ8dAFA5xKD/G1vfgBHCyXlnXby6u6LgJYcACzV5?= =?utf-8?q?YoAsbwA3EyfVqt3sD6RkQXJSkKli5Ndv1SY=3D?= Received: from MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:301:34::35) by MWHPR1301MB1951.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:301:2e::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2856.8; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 04:54:51 +0000 Received: from MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e893:a912:1d3a:5a33]) by MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e893:a912:1d3a:5a33%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2835.013; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 04:54:50 +0000 From: Linda Dunbar To: Huaimo Chen , "idr@ietf.org" CC: "bess@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage? Thread-Index: AQHV/khfSWGs6O2sgE+mZRAOrSpJtqhQ6i4A Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 04:54:50 +0000 Message-ID: =?utf-8?q?=3CMWHPR1301MB209657458BAD0C7AC3D1645785F50=40MWHPR130?= =?utf-8?q?1MB2096=2Enamprd13=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= References: =?utf-8?q?=3CMWHPR1301MB2096A17F9653EBEEAAF9C6AE85F40=40MWHPR130?= =?utf-8?q?1MB2096=2Enamprd13=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E=2C_=3CMWHPR1301MB209?= =?utf-8?q?69D3F2062607748C04CC485F40=40MWHPR1301MB2096=2Enamprd13=2Eprod=2E?= =?utf-8?q?outlook=2Ecom=3E_=3CBY5PR13MB365140B73C5BB40C81684B73F2F40=40BY5P?= =?utf-8?q?R13MB3651=2Enamprd13=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CBY5PR13MB365140B73C5BB40C81684B73F2F40=40BY5PR13MB?= =?utf-8?q?3651=2Enamprd13=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=linda.dunbar@futurewei.com; x-originating-ip: [2605:6000:1526:d41e:45e:6689:1ae9:7d00] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8a02ffe7-8a71-44f9-d473-08d7cc8ad29d x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR1301MB1951:|MWHPR1301MB1951: x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: =?utf-8?q?=3CMWHPR1301MB1951CA3A6A8CE52244C610DC8?= =?utf-8?q?5F50=40MWHPR1301MB1951=2Enamprd13=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 03484C0ABF x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; =?utf-8?q?SFS=3A=2810019020=29=284636?= =?utf-8?b?MDA5KSgzOTYwMDMpKDM5ODUwNDAwMDA0KSgxMzYwMDMpKDM2NjAwNCkoMzQ2?= =?utf-8?b?MDAyKSgzNzYwMDIpKDE5OTAwNCkoMjkwNjAwMikoNjY0NDYwMDgpKDc2MTE2?= =?utf-8?q?006=29=2866476007=29=2866946007=29=285660300002=29=2866556008=29?= =?utf-8?b?KDQ0ODMyMDExKSgxODYwMDMpKDMxNjAwMikoNTUwMTYwMDIpKDQ1MDEwMDAwMiko?= =?utf-8?q?4326008=29=289686003=29=2871200400001=29=287696005=29=288936002?= =?utf-8?b?KSg2NTA2MDA3KSgzMzY1NjAwMikoMTEwMTM2MDA1KSg4NjM2MjAwMSkoNTI1?= =?utf-8?b?MzYwMTQpKDY0NzU2MDA4KSg2NjU3NDAxMikoNTM1NDYwMTEpKDk2NjAwNSko?= =?utf-8?q?8676002=29=2881156014=29=2881166006=29=28478600001=29=28579004=29?= =?utf-8?q?=3B?= DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR1301MB1951; H:MWHPR1301MB2096.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: futurewei.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: =?utf-8?q?fb/9utGjlBhLQjNG+6+/MeJgWIWgxAI?= =?utf-8?q?0p2+Ek5Dy9XOwGaJg8augydK3zb3p6sBah9wOJSSs0qwEq9uQg5elTqp+sOys+dCP?= =?utf-8?q?FrdztnijKuP0SYuY6WH/yw7bqc8CYdJ9+mnkLWWBhnmW4FNLBmf1Y19fsJicpMkoh?= =?utf-8?q?CygNOKIVHp1Gzqyz4+wgQOxAJE3SVoYEGbMuuZycLt510gBHFB78VIz5/7ptYgCGP?= =?utf-8?q?X4P9AnFNNaqe4GPp+Zbo/4zYW95G5ZMv2lVRN012v2ziblgz5xLZF5S+SIfOmJvCS?= =?utf-8?q?mLfBqnXfko6NvOssbTWn1cjeVvhzFXS/FIOGwtuNf/WCuEp4lmgyMTCErJ7k8yxxV?= =?utf-8?q?wgEwKlg41wqNPt9A8cGevTOE4dCGjcVRMFYPfw0Ljk4UuQ326n9YQlazpZt34x/3m?= =?utf-8?q?+x/vgniAyqjEKgIzM/6ojq8dbZZ0YkEhO3mlHq5GqsEIGr6uky4PKxBpgeTlhys5K?= =?utf-8?q?I37J+qXyNuQ02vzT+W6FKMOvDURuYimw+8XkYjpdMeJCuS2A=3D=3D?= x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?q?GOoeDPaDPDYYOb394OuQxWXDhhIub3?= =?utf-8?q?+wFuwtD6zdFfYamibfQmv2FG9zRvTfZx77+qWs8dsCmXsQhSNXAtlkbOCuIjesfah?= =?utf-8?q?APa//IXiVH1f/+/53leGtF4KHilY/FjYdq49A1pqIp/+Yv0rniXPXcTvWlGMpRIQX?= =?utf-8?q?YxAdsew+awflBlF6P7zO9nQKjOfsAntci6/fLZNeFFJEJ5l0X1U7DA=3D=3D?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR1301MB209657458BAD0C7AC3D1645785F50MWHPR1301MB2096_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8a02ffe7-8a71-44f9-d473-08d7cc8ad29d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Mar 2020 04:54:50.4947 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: =?utf-8?q?Q8l0+Z5juB6kzS/5xopyZ?= =?utf-8?q?/+j6Sj3VBHI7bShNUbLeQm+hHzBhUsAOjaPkOicTpFp8jI7+Ski79Piu5kAc98OhA?= =?utf-8?q?=3D=3D?= X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR1301MB1951 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage? X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 04:55:00 -0000 --_000_MWHPR1301MB209657458BAD0C7AC3D1645785F50MWHPR1301MB2096_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Huaimo, Thank you very much for the suggestion. Do you mean using the similar approach as VPN Label carried by NLRI Path At= tribute [RFC8277] for SDWAN Segmentation Identifier? If yes, the UPDATE message should not use the MPLS VPN SAFI (=3D128) to avo= id confusion, right? Linda From: Huaimo Chen Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 6:45 PM To: Linda Dunbar ; idr@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identif= ier" to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-u= sage? Hi Linda, It seems that a label may be used as an "Identifier" to differentiate S= D-WAN Segmentation. Best Regards, Huaimo ________________________________ From: Idr > on behalf of = Linda Dunbar = > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 1:22 PM To: idr@ietf.org > Cc: bess@ietf.org > Subject: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier"= to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage= ? BGP Experts, Do you know if there is any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" = to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation? Here is the discussion in BESS WG. Wa= nt to get IDR WG feedbacks for this question. Thank you. Linda From: Linda Dunbar Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 11:54 AM To: Najem, Basil >; bess@ie= tf.org Cc: draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org Subject: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to differ= entiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage? Based on Basil's comment on needing an identifier to differentiate SDWAN in= stances, I added a section to draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage . Want to = hear people's feedback. 3.1 Requirements 3.1.1Supporting Multiple SDWAN Segmentations The term "network segmentation" is used extensively in SDWAN deployment. In= general (and in this document), the "Network Segmentation" is referring to= the process of dividing the network into logical sub-networks using isolat= ion techniques on a forwarding device such as a switch, router, or firewall= . For a homogeneous network, such as MPLS VPN or Layer 2 network, VRF or VL= AN are used to separate network segments. As SDWAN is an overlay network arching over multiple types of networks, it = is important to have distinct identifiers to differentiate SDWAN network in= stances (or segmentations). When different SDWAN network segments do not ha= ve their own assigned AS numbers, a very easy way is to use Private AS numb= ers, in the range of 64512 to 65535, to differentiate different SDWAN segme= ntations. When using BGP to control the SDWAN networks, the Private AS numb= ers are carried by the BGP UPDATE messages to their corresponding RRs. Greatly appreciate any feedback on this description. Is there any scenario that Private AS cannot be used? Thank you very much. Linda Dunbar From: Najem, Basil > Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 3:02 PM To: Linda Dunbar >; bess@ietf.org Cc: draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org Subject: RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage descript= ion of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based Segmen= tation Hi Linda; The SD-WAN Segment is part of the SD-WAN fabric; in other words, there coul= d be more than one Segment over a single underlay depending on the design a= nd the business requirements. Each Segment represents a single and an isolated L3 domain; therefore, I su= ggested that we may need to include the Segment ID in the BGP update messag= es in order to identify and build the routing the table for each Segment (b= ased on the Segment ID). Hope this helps. Regards; Basil From: Linda Dunbar > Sent: February-03-20 10:40 AM To: Najem, Basil >; bess@ie= tf.org Cc: draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org Subject: [EXT]RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage des= cription of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based S= egmentation Basil, Thank you very much for the comments. Your suggested wording change will be incorporated in the next revision. As for your suggestion of Segment and Segment ID of a SDWAN node (to be inc= luded in the BGP UPDATE), does the "Segment" mean the different Underlay? In the figure below, C-PE1 has 3 WAN ports: 2 to MPLS network and 1 to Publ= ic Internet. Do you mean C-PE1 has 3 WAN "segments"? If not, can you elaborate more? [cid:image001..png@01D5FDE3.587A47F0] Thanks, Linda From: Najem, Basil > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 5:48 PM To: Linda Dunbar >; bess@ietf.org Cc: draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org Subject: RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage descript= ion of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based Segmen= tation Hello Linda; I haven't gone through the entire document; however, I have the following q= uick comments 1. Regarding the following paragraph: 1. Augment of transport, which refers to utilizing overlay paths over= different underlay networks. Very often there are multiple parallel overla= y paths between any two SDWAN edges, some of which are private networks ove= r which traffic can traverse without encryption, others require encryption,= e.g. over untrusted public networks. The traffic that traverses the privet networks can be either encrypted or u= necrypted (in other words, the assumption that the traffic is NOT encrypted= is not always correct). I would change the parpagaph to the following (for= clarity): 1. Augment of transport, which refers to utilizing overlay paths over= different underlay networks. Very often there are multiple parallel overla= y paths between any two SDWAN edges, some of which are private networks ove= r which traffic can traverse with or without encryption, others require enc= ryption, e.g. over untrusted public networks. 1. Another thing that we need to discuss is the Segment ID; each Segment= (at the SD-WAN Edge) MUST have an ID. The SD-WAN Policy will map the Appli= cation Flow to the Segment. Since the Segment is a "routing domain", the BG= P update will be exchanged with the memebers of a particular Segment. As such: Should we include the Segment ID as an attribute in the BGP update= messages? Perhaps we need to further discuss this in details. Any feedback is welcomed and it's highly appreciated. Regards; Basil From: Linda Dunbar > Sent: January-31-20 5:17 PM To: bess@ietf.org Cc: draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org Subject: [EXT]solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage descrip= tion of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based Segme= ntation BESS participants: "SDWAN" networks is characterized by: 1. Augment of transport, which refers to utilizing overlay paths over= different underlay networks. Very often there are multiple parallel overla= y paths between any two SDWAN edges, some of which are private networks ove= r which traffic can traverse without encryption, others require encryption,= e.g. over untrusted public networks. 2. Enable direct Internet access from remote sites, instead hauling a= ll traffic to Corporate HQ for centralized policy control. 3. Some traffic are routed based on application IDs instead of based = on destination IP addresses. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/ describes examples of using BGP = UPDATE messages to achieve the SDWAN Application Based Segmentation, assum= ing that the applications are assigned with unique IP addresses. In the Figure below, the following BGP Updates can be advertised to ensure = that Payment Application only communicates with the Payment Gateway: [cid:image002..png@01D5FDE3.587A47F0] BGP UPDATE #1 from C-PE2 to RR for the RED P2P topology (only propagated to= Payment GW node: - MP-NLRI Path Attribute: * 30.1.1.x/24 - Tunnel Encap Path Attribute * IPsec Attributes for PaymentGW ->C-PE2 BGP UPDATE #2 from C-PE2 to RR for the routes to be reached by Purple: - MP-NLRI Path Attribute: * 10.1.x.x * 12.4.x.x - TunnelEncap Path Attribute: * Any node to C-PE2 Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Linda Dunbar ________________________________ External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / Cou= rriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints ________________________________ External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / Cou= rriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints --_000_MWHPR1301MB209657458BAD0C7AC3D1645785F50MWHPR1301MB2096_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Huaimo,

 

Thank you very much for the suggestion. <= /p>

Do you mean using the similar approach as VPN Label = carried by NLRI Path Attribute [RFC8277] for SDWAN Segmentation Identifier?=

If yes, the UPDATE message should not use the MPLS V= PN SAFI (=3D128) to avoid confusion, right?

 

Linda

 

From: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.c= om>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 6:45 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; idr@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as &= quot;Identifier" to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar= -bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?

 

Hi Lind= a,

&n= bsp;

  =   It seems that a label may be used as an "Identifier" = to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation.

&n= bsp;

Best Re= gards,

Huaimo<= o:p>

From: Idr <idr= -bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 1:22 PM
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "= ;Identifier" to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bes= s-bgp-sdwan-usage?

 

BGP Experts,

 

Do you know if  there is any problem of using&= nbsp; Private AS as  "Identifier" to differentiate SD-WAN Se= gmentation? Here is the discussion in BESS WG. Want to get IDR WG feedbacks= for this question.

 

Thank you.

Linda

 

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Najem, Basil <basil.na= jem@bell.ca>; bess@ietf.org
Cc: dr= aft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org
Subject: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifie= r" to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwa= n-usage?

 

Based on Basil’s comment on needing an identi= fier to differentiate SDWAN instances, I added a section to  draft-dun= bar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage . Want to hear people’s feedback.

 

3.1    Requ= irements

3.1.1Supporting Multiple SDWAN Segmentations=

The term “network segmentation” is used= extensively in SDWAN deployment. In general (and in this document), the &#= 8220;Network Segmentation” is referring to the process of dividing th= e network into logical sub-networks using isolation techniques on a forwarding device such as a switch, router, or firewall. For a homoge= neous network, such as MPLS VPN or Layer 2 network, VRF or VLAN are used to= separate network segments.

As SDWAN is an overlay network arching over multipl= e types of networks, it is important to have distinct identifiers to differ= entiate SDWAN network instances (or segmentations). When different SDWAN ne= twork segments do not have their own assigned AS numbers, a very easy way is to use Private AS numbers, in the = range of 64512 to 65535, to differentiate different SDWAN segmentations. Wh= en using BGP to control the SDWAN networks, the Private AS numbers are carr= ied by the BGP UPDATE messages to their corresponding RRs.

 

Greatly appreciate any feedback on this description= .

 

Is there any scenario that Private AS cannot be use= d?

 

Thank you very much.

 

Linda Dunbar

 

From: Najem, Basil <basil.najem@bell.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 3:02 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <l= inda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; bess@ietf.org
Cc: dr= aft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org
Subject: RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage d= escription of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based= Segmentation

 

 =

 =

Hi Lin= da;

 =

The SD= -WAN Segment is part of the SD-WAN fabric; in other words, there could be m= ore than one Segment over a single underlay depending on the design and the= business requirements.

 =

Each S= egment represents a single and an isolated L3 domain; therefore, I suggeste= d that we may need to include the Segment ID in the BGP update messages in = order to identify and build the routing the table for each Segment (based on the Segment ID).

 =

Hope t= his helps.

 =

Regard= s;

 =

Basil<= /span>

 

 =

From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
Sent: February-03-20 10:40 AM
To: Najem, Basil <basil.na= jem@bell.ca>; bess@ietf.org
Cc: dr= aft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org
Subject: [EXT]RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us= age description of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application = Based Segmentation

 

Basil,

 

Thank you very much for the comments.

Your suggested wording change will be incorporated = in the next revision.

 

As for your suggestion of Segment and Segment ID of= a SDWAN node (to be included in the BGP UPDATE), does the “Segment&#= 8221; mean the different Underlay?

In the figure below, C-PE1 has 3 WAN ports: 2 to MP= LS network and 1 to Public Internet.

Do you mean C-PE1 has 3 WAN “segments”?=

If not, can you elaborate more?

 

 

 

Thanks, Linda

 

From: Najem, Basil <basil.najem@bell.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 5:48 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <l= inda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; bess@ietf.org
Cc: dr= aft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org
Subject: RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage d= escription of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based= Segmentation

 

 =

Hello = Linda;

 =

I have= n’t gone through the entire document; however, I have the following q= uick comments

 =

  1. Regarding the following paragraph:

 

1.       Augment of transport, which refers to utilizing overlay paths over differe= nt underlay networks. Very often there are multiple parallel overlay paths = between any two SDWAN edges, some of which are private networks over which traffic can traverse without encryption, other= s require encryption, e.g. over untrusted public networks.

 

The traffic that traverses the privet networks can be either e= ncrypted or unecrypted (in other words, the assumption that the traffic is = NOT encrypted is not always correct). I would change the parpagaph to the following (for clarity):

 

1.       Augment of transport, which refers to utilizing overlay paths over differe= nt underlay networks. Very often there are multiple parallel overlay paths = between any two SDWAN edges, some of which are private networks over which traffic can traverse with or without encryption, others require encryption, e.g. over untrusted p= ublic networks.

 

 

  1. A= nother thing that we need to discuss is the Segment ID; each Segment (at th= e SD-WAN Edge) MUST have an ID. The SD-WAN Policy will map the Application = Flow to the Segment. Since the Segment is a “routing domain”, the BGP update will be exchanged with the me= mebers of a particular Segment.

&nbs= p;

As such: Should we include the Segment ID as an attribute in = the BGP update messages? Perhaps we need to further discuss this in details.

 

Any feedback is welcomed and it’s highly appreciated.

 

Regards;

 

Basil

 

 

From:= Linda Dunbar <linda.d= unbar@futurewei.com>
Sent: January-31-20 5:17 PM
To: bess@ietf.org
Cc: dr= aft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org
Subject: [EXT]solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage = description of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Base= d Segmentation

 

BESS par= ticipants:

 

“S= DWAN” networks is characterized by:

1.       Augment of transport, which refers to utilizing overlay paths over differe= nt underlay networks. Very often there are multiple parallel overlay paths = between any two SDWAN edges, some of which are private networks over which traffic can traverse without encryption, other= s require encryption, e.g. over untrusted public networks.

2.       Enable direct Internet access from remote sites, instead hauling all traff= ic to Corporate HQ for centralized policy control.

3.       Some traffic are routed based on application IDs instead of based on desti= nation IP addresses.

 

 

https://d= atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/ describes examples of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve the SDWAN Appli= cation Based Segmentation,  assuming that the applications are assigne= d with unique IP addresses.

In the F= igure below, the following BGP Updates can be advertised to ensure that Pay= ment Application only communicates with the Payment Gateway:

 

 

BGP UPDA= TE #1 from C-PE2 to RR for the RED P2P topology (only propagated to Payment= GW node:

-&n= bsp;       MP-NLRI Path Attribute:

      • 30.1.1.x/24

-&n= bsp;       Tunnel Encap Path Attribute<= /o:p>

      • IPsec Attributes for PaymentGW ->C-PE2

 

BGP UPDA= TE #2 from C-PE2 to RR for the routes to be reached by Purple:

-&n= bsp;       MP-NLRI Path Attribute:

      • 10.1.x.x
      • 12.4.x.x

-=         TunnelEncap Path Attribute:<= /o:p>

      • Any node to C-PE2

 

 

Your fee= dback is greatly appreciated.

 

Thank yo= u very much.

 

Linda Du= nbar

= External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints

= External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints

--_000_MWHPR1301MB209657458BAD0C7AC3D1645785F50MWHPR1301MB2096_--