Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 16 February 2024 21:14 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 F25A5C14CF1B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:14:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.005
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.005 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QfBZVonYQn7A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CD4EC14CF12 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-563c403719cso2153413a12.2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:14:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1708118042; x=1708722842; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wfHI+y+wBo2AlssPHDdd8ODA7RWLFpWm5k/WVNmLMVo=; b=WtJ+MTDBL+OhJLZltc04hm5d36238KkSb64C1VFUzd5Iqx20EciHx6KfPBjNnRYMS3 5poswwKUzJWFuBS//CJ37nrWey5K5nnkvVf3doLxJpr0+elXIaDQQTFuYOUfjaBw92+d hgA4daFqlhoKHaJz9p5WcHg5zVbTg5ty9CTCOy8fONMZqfg8V1rvVtU4kQFoz1JdyDRx kW6XCxOvzdZSyH29mlnoYqJs254IKY/rbzKdj5j+2wXmUVwNmJjAcXlORYGKVqO34hlx lFgJavxizgCMVMOUpCiam7LhMg9n3WJ2KXlde9Z/bhmHL86xHpjPf1thR9VLNfcGXW0p eJtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708118042; x=1708722842; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=wfHI+y+wBo2AlssPHDdd8ODA7RWLFpWm5k/WVNmLMVo=; b=peA/lU7JP54fKI8e8IF2mJS0jl4119RsMEX7VnOUzbZDw+w99AjyFbEgoPjD8jnJ+P qIg/WNJpSD6DwNAWmztx8YKJzhFDysfl6xIf0eSA756XEKsM8iln8qxNSdx2qKKEir6s C1tSfHBUnbEdhf0MJpZmE/Y2ZLwqf1pFOKk/fFzoHPqOeJ2SEL/XKjMHHMLNsDQnLLZy KpJtcDPCEOL6fYknUyvpAQ5NqixYb6PkZvq1STie2HByoky12+TLUapyU9LbDR4gB2gP B7JEIOccA8X0xvAIN+MDO+VFP/UR8gtxUyt6Um0vp66D0H+il3zbAFMYqw6/nbQuxVAc 8CpQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUEbKoTbNgRTNVLD7AvQCs0KbcLWkQcK1UqMcaKKsdiOFTLnUdWrlrys/VxsEwCbhiipZSqLP91CerukRI=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy/qEhrEDrYg40hYlBQArn2ASHoUss5Xnm234vaEAV4UcJP2LaB zChT4C1YW1tj68rho4ADsW1pHDzqRTF5p4ZvprFzeNqNRVbK0qaKHpv22q9+wen3LNFSuL6bxGy aJhp/B+9S1f8TN9dWogIaRN82OuYfCq8Jp/1y4Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGwpO4dOwTkig4SoBsCxgJGZ4f+oDumXVjiHWLVA2RZ76hvEaSX677buSde3VddHcjlYgnXCYApddzP8Vo6HE0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1491:b0:561:ae53:565 with SMTP id e17-20020a056402149100b00561ae530565mr5188890edv.32.1708118041827; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:14:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <170808979403.62450.15246162512138575009@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOj+MMF_E+PiV=-=CztdWt+iseir+tytYwBVYw=4ttR=VKNn4w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMH9Bo65KzheHwHLSaW6L-QzCPAGiQVxceHGOna9993NzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEfhRrw3WdfReMaiaFpmd7ngxcLOziN4qzvH4roY1PJoThPV6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMENdNFEfjed+KKwbw2CVr-eQmR74_LytnFpu8oYsuJbmw@mail.gmail.com> <SJ0PR05MB863208BE5AB824F40A6DFB50A24C2@SJ0PR05MB8632.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHtoocwr_yvXfhY3mJ0u_XWW5GuZ_cx0GTjOx=V6Xd3Dw@mail.gmail.com> <SJ0PR05MB8632255397EEB21A7AEE4E97A24C2@SJ0PR05MB8632.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR05MB8632255397EEB21A7AEE4E97A24C2@SJ0PR05MB8632.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 22:13:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFAZoGOmVNkGW_6E1=5jBZxyQoMytBU6qxuE1rCW0N2Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj@juniper.net>
Cc: Igor Malyushkin <gmalyushkin@gmail.com>, Natrajan Venkataraman <natv@juniper.net>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, Jeff Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e2cf80611863944"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KbIZkPm5C0WwOwqXUFAyNG63w08>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 16 Feb 2024 21:14:09 -0000
Hi, > So do you agree that with distinct CLUSTER_ID on the > RRs/ABRs, there is an issue? I do. But I call it misconfiguration. Of course you can/will say that in most if not all BGP implementations configuring CLUSTER_ID is optional and by default BGP RTR_ID is taken which makes it different by default RR by RR - but oh well - there is few things in BGP one is expected to just know before getting to the keyboard. Setting next-hop-self on RRs in IBGP is yet another topic for discussion, but I don't think we need to really spend time on it now. > Configuring same CLUSTER_ID, if feasible, is another way to deal with it, agree. Glad we agree on that one. Thx, R. On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:01 PM Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj@juniper.net> wrote: > OK, now onto the technical discussion, > > > > > On the technical side just configured same CLUSTER_ID on both RRs/ABRs > and there is no issue. > > > > So do you agree that with distinct CLUSTER_ID on the RRs/ABRs, there is an > issue? > > > > Configuring same CLUSTER_ID, if feasible, is another way to deal with it, > agree. > > > > Thanks > > Kaliraj > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From: *Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> > *Date: *Friday, February 16, 2024 at 12:27 PM > *To: *Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj@juniper.net> > *Cc: *Igor Malyushkin <gmalyushkin@gmail.com>, Natrajan Venkataraman < > natv@juniper.net>, idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares < > shares@ndzh.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, Jeff Haas < > jhaas@juniper.net>, idr-chairs@ietf.org <idr-chairs@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > Hi Kaliraj & Sue, > > > > > The text in this draft has been reviewed by WG, as part of draft-ct. > > > > I do not agree with this explanation/justification. If someone is not > interested at all in CT draft lot's of smuggled features and extensions may > not get sufficient attention. > > > > So I am very glad chairs recommended to remove it from the CT draft into a > separate document. As such I am afraid it would have a hard time to even > become an IDR WG document so I am not sure if the fact that some orthogonal > text was pulled out of WG document makes is automatically a WG document. > > > > On the technical side just configured same CLUSTER_ID on both RRs/ABRs and > there is no issue. > > > > Cheers, > > R. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:28 PM Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj@juniper.net> > wrote: > > Hi Robert, Igor, > > > > To provide some context – > > > > The text in this draft has been reviewed by WG, as part of draft-ct. > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-23.html#name-avoiding-loops-between-rout > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-23.html*name-avoiding-loops-between-rout__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HK1hMYBmWLPwtF2YCSAargxA_wbJrNC8lBcRa2wgLKBTusa6Yay2o3Ttz1O02ODTI36LdYU1PN5-1jQ3$> > > > > During the WG Directorate and Chair reviews of draft-ct, it was suggested > to pull out this section to a new draft, as the described problem is not > specific to CT. > > > > This document history is described in: > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00#appendix-A.1 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00*appendix-A.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HK1hMYBmWLPwtF2YCSAargxA_wbJrNC8lBcRa2wgLKBTusa6Yay2o3Ttz1O02ODTI36LdYU1PF2tKmx3$> > > > > I will cleanup the Author and Contributor list, to not inherit from > draft-CT. > > > > About whether the problem being described is real or not, we can have > further discussions, and clarify draft text as required. We hit these > issues in our testing with LU and CT, and I think it is very likely to hit > it in the field. That’s why it is important to document it. > > > > Just wanted to first clear the confusion on the origin/history of this > draft. So that we can focus on technical discussion. > > > > IDR-chairs may want to add something. > > > > Thanks > > Kaliraj > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From: *Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> > *Date: *Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:49 AM > *To: *Igor Malyushkin <gmalyushkin@gmail.com> > *Cc: *Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj@juniper.net>, Natrajan Venkataraman < > natv@juniper.net>, idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > Hey Igor, > > > > Well I think there is no problem to be solved here to start with. > > > > It looks to me like someone completely unfamiliar with IETF process or > even BGP Route Reflection took a CT draft and deleted most text except > Appendix A, Co-Authors, Contributors and part of References :) > > > > I am actually surprised that IETF Submit script allowed to post it with > such document name. Looks like it is broken. > > > > Cheers, > > R. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 6:37 PM Igor Malyushkin <gmalyushkin@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > Agreed with Robert. I thought too I missed the adoption call and was > surprised to see the doc already adopted. > > About CT parts, to me they look like a some form of advertising, not sure > they are necessary to express the problem statement at all. Not to mention > that it looks like AIGP solves the problem in general. > > > > пт, 16 февр. 2024 г. в 19:27, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>: > > All, > > > > > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt > > > > Also please kindly indicate why this text is posted as an IDR WG document > as the format of the name suggests ... > > > > I do not recall any single discussion on this proposal on the IDR WG list. > > > > Are the authors, so many co-authors and a large list of contributors not > aware about the draft naming convention not to mention BGP Route Reflection > principles of operation ? > > > > The Ack section also seems copied from CT draft ... not too mention it > says this: > > The decision to not reuse SAFI 128 and create a new address-family to > carry these transport-routes was based on suggestion made by Richard > Roberts and Krzysztof Szarkowicz.¶ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00*appendix-C-2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AZEUHyTPYNlG9OKb52muKBAGkNew-0Po8FKLaviWSEg-Oqp4Bqg_H6hwb1DZEuJaszphNMHxl8ErvDlz$> > > I think it would be simply best if you delete this doc from datatracker at > this point. > > > > Cheers, > > Robert > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 5:24 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have two comments on your draft: > > > > #1 - RFC4456 does not assume RRs not to be in the data plane. Quite > contrary when this RFC was originally written all RRs were in the > forwarding path as most networks did not use any form of encapsulation. Yes > I do recall running network which did not run MPLS nor SR :) In fact the > mentioned above encapsulations moved the RRs out of data path as > encapsulated packets did not need IP lookup. > > > > #2 - What you are saying in respect to CLUSTER_LIST is incorrect. The > entire point of CLUSTER_LIST is not to allow paths with local CLUSTER_ID to > enter Route Reflector in the first place. Quote from RFC4456: > > > > *If the local CLUSTER_ID is found in the CLUSTER_LIST, the advertisement > received SHOULD be ignored**.* > > > > Best path has nothing to do with it. The augmentation to BGP best path > selection only aims for consistent selection not to prevent the loops. > > > > Conclusion: What you are describing is a route reflector > misconfiguration not a protocol bug. > > > > ** "ignored - really means dropped here. > > > > Cheers, > > Robert > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > Date: Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 2:23 PM > Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt > To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org> > Cc: <idr@ietf.org> > > > > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt is now available. It is a > work > item of the Inter-Domain Routing (IDR) WG of the IETF. > > Title: BGP Route Reflector in Forwarding Path > Authors: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai > Natrajan Venkataraman > Name: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt > Pages: 8 > Dates: 2024-02-16 > > Abstract: > > The procedures in BGP Route Reflection (RR) spec [RFC4456] primarily > deal with scenarios where the RR is not in forwarding path, and is > reflecting BGP routes with next hop unchanged. > > These procedures can sometimes result in traffic forwarding loops in > deployments where the RR is in forwarding path, and is reflecting BGP > routes with next hop set to self. > > This document specifies approaches to minimize possiblity of such > traffic forwarding loops. One of those approaches updates path > selection procedures specified in Section 9 of BGP RR. [RFC4456] > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AZEUHyTPYNlG9OKb52muKBAGkNew-0Po8FKLaviWSEg-Oqp4Bqg_H6hwb1DZEuJaszphNMHxl6sQStEm$> > > There is also an HTMLized version available at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AZEUHyTPYNlG9OKb52muKBAGkNew-0Po8FKLaviWSEg-Oqp4Bqg_H6hwb1DZEuJaszphNMHxl5yt5xQa$> > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AZEUHyTPYNlG9OKb52muKBAGkNew-0Po8FKLaviWSEg-Oqp4Bqg_H6hwb1DZEuJaszphNMHxl_q06C-f$> > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AZEUHyTPYNlG9OKb52muKBAGkNew-0Po8FKLaviWSEg-Oqp4Bqg_H6hwb1DZEuJaszphNMHxl9CJwiz8$> > >
- [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-00.txt internet-drafts
- [Idr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Igor Malyushkin
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Igor Malyushkin
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… James Uttaro
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Igor Malyushkin
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Igor Malyushkin
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-0… Igor Malyushkin