Re: [Idr] Comments: Route Origin Community in SR Policy(draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy)

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Mon, 01 June 2020 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.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 B4B813A0DAE; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 00:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 LMXu-i2xl4vP; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 00:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 094573A0DAD; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 00:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id EE1CA521F17D2379F099; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:25:26 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.76) by lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:25:26 +0100
Received: from DGGEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.40) by lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:25:26 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.79]) by dggeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:25:16 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, Fangsheng <fangsheng@huawei.com>, "stefano previdi" <stefano@previdi.net>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Comments: Route Origin Community in SR Policy(draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy)
Thread-Index: AdYek4MmKSUhOySlR86q9L0AexcDnQANyexg//+EXgCAHHfPgP/8mcQg
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 07:25:16 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A57CCB@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB029FAC88@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <MW3PR11MB45702B49025A293583346F36C1AA0@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMGbjvgn6VL3dKviuxzNNRk0pwFkBOTJUz15D8iSM9=-Rw@mail.gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB457083E56B77688CA68A2500C1B80@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB457083E56B77688CA68A2500C1B80@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.203.229]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A57CCBdggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ILQ1A8eHtGeu_84Z9z9TOuEDxdQ>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 13:28:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [Idr] Comments: Route Origin Community in SR Policy(draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy)
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 07:25:32 -0000

Hi Ketan,

Sorry for my delay, I saw the update, and it has addressed my comments, many thanks.

Best,
Cheng


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ketant@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:00 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>om>; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org; idr wg <idr@ietf.org>rg>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; Fangsheng <fangsheng@huawei.com>om>; stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Comments: Route Origin Community in SR Policy(draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy)

Hi Robert,

You are right that the “Originator” is not used in BGP best path and is just for a tie-breaking logic in SRTE between paths from different protocols and controllers. I doubt if there is a functional issue here.

I thought that Chengli was bringing in some new/different requirement for the “Originator” field for some deployment design. I haven’t seen a response/clarification from him as yet, and so perhaps I misunderstood him in which case we are ok here.

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Sent: 30 April 2020 14:46
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com<mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>
Cc: Chengli (Cheng Li) <chengli13@huawei.com<mailto:chengli13@huawei.com>>; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org>; idr wg <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; Fangsheng <fangsheng@huawei.com<mailto:fangsheng@huawei.com>>; stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net<mailto:stefano@previdi.net>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Comments: Route Origin Community in SR Policy(draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy)

Hi Chengli and Ketan,

Well I think (perhaps to your surprise) the current text is actually correct.

See the overall idea of section 2.4 is not to define the real source of the candidate path. That is done in section 2.5 The idea here is to keep multiple *paths or versions* of the candidate paths in the local system uniquely.

See if you continue reading section 2.6 demystifies the real objective:


   The tuple <Protocol-Origin, originator, discriminator> uniquely

   identifies a candidate path.



So the real originator is encoded in discriminator and here it just means the peer candidate path was

received from. And if you read on this entire exercise only servers best path selection as described in section 2.9.



.... the following order until only one valid best path is selected:



   1.  Higher value of Protocol-Origin is selected.



   2.  If specified by configuration, prefer the existing installed

       path.



   3.  Lower value of originator is selected.



   4.  Finally, the higher value of discriminator is selected.

+

      The originator allows an operator to have multiple redundant

      controllers and still maintain a deterministic behaviour over

      which of them are preferred even if they are providing the same

      candidate paths for the same SR policies to the headend.

Thx,
R.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:46 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Hi Cheng,

I assume you are recommending the use of Route Origin Extended Community (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4360#section-5) for conveying the “Originator” when the SR Policy update is propagated over eBGP sessions via other eBGP/iBGP sessions instead of direct peering with the headend.

I believe it does address the scenario you describe given that it is expected that SR Policy propagation via BGP is happening within a single administrative domain even if it comprises of multiple ASes.

Also copying the IDR WG for inputs since this would likely need to be updated in draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy.

Thanks,
Ketan

From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 30 April 2020 07:34
To: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; huruizhao <huruizhao@huawei.com<mailto:huruizhao@huawei.com>>; Fangsheng <fangsheng@huawei.com<mailto:fangsheng@huawei.com>>
Subject: [spring] Comments: Route Origin Community in SR Policy(draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy)

Hi authors,

In section 2.4 of [draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06], introduced how the node-address of "Originator of CP(Candidate Path)" is generated when the Protocol-Origin is BGP. It says:
    “Protocol-Origin is BGP SR Policy, it is provided by the BGP component on the headend and is:
     o  the BGP Router ID and ASN of the node/controller signalling the candidate path when it has a BGP session to the headend, OR
     o  the BGP Router ID of the eBGP peer signalling the candidate path  along with ASN of origin when the signalling is done via one or  more intermediate eBGP routers, OR
     o  the BGP Originator ID [RFC4456] and the ASN of the node/controller  when the signalling is done via one or more route-reflectors over  iBGP session.”

In the operator's network, in order to reduce the number of  BGP sessions in controller and achieve scalability, the controller only establishes eBGP peer with the RR. And the RR establishes iBGP peers with the headends. As mentioned in the draft, the headend will use the RR's Router ID as the CP's node-address (the signaling is done via route transmission from RR to the headend instead of route reflection).  The headend needs to carry the CP's key when reporting the SR Policy status to the controller through BGP-LS. And there is a problem that the controller may not recognize the key because the node-address is generated by the RR node.

For network robustness, two or more RRs are usually deployed. This will introduce another problem.. When the same CP advertised by the controller is delivered to the headend through different RRs, the headend cannot distinguish whether it is the same CP because the node-address in the CPs' key  comes from different RRs.

To solve these problems,  We recommend carrying the Route Origin Community (defined in RFC 4360) directly when the controller advertises BGP routes.  In this way, the key  of the CP is determined by the controller and will not change during the advertisement of BGP routes.

Thanks,
Cheng
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr