Re: [Idr] redirect IPv6 nexthop

Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi@cisco.com> Mon, 12 January 2015 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <shtsuchi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189241A6FF0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 08:35:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 v250YVCcqcpZ for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 08:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bgl-iport-3.cisco.com (bgl-iport-3.cisco.com [72.163.197.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 689851A1BB1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 08:35:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4147; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1421080535; x=1422290135; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d1VzarStPsfcGxiq6elQiNG019KCrRLvWP/UvH4Etz4=; b=Q1LJzLuJ4RiyiK9eDd1tHDJzaZaAvK3IKnsS4ddxaO2RmrqPXehNRY/q FQ7lhqPWM/QdsrimXDAmqixD/3/um86GTyiVMMc/vsMrXDTTBjubmvVN3 5DenCyOEDqZsw8LXaOIKv18+ALlR5HLNLVytQ+HNS8IWNuYkHpBxVGqER U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,744,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="14688013"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-3.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2015 16:35:32 +0000
Received: from [10.141.2.54] (dhcp-10-141-2-54.cisco.com [10.141.2.54]) by bgl-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0CGZKbQ001198; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:35:21 GMT
Message-ID: <54B3F7C8.2070804@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:35:20 +0900
From: Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: robert@raszuk.net
References: <54B3C356.8060603@cisco.com> <CA+b+ER=34LqmiAWOvS+7ioBg=UcvGRGbZsA1U0XVXqcBf8BcoA@mail.gmail.com> <54B3E09E.5060406@cisco.com> <CA+b+ER=4aXFa4rB_WxztKe=pq+8q=-=XUcS00q2KmSUcLTM7rw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=4aXFa4rB_WxztKe=pq+8q=-=XUcS00q2KmSUcLTM7rw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/N1119NwTftZozTcNdZMoOlKtlCM>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] redirect IPv6 nexthop
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 12 Jan 2015 16:35:38 -0000

Robert
Thnaks for more detail explanation. And your assamption is perfect.;-)
I think if we need "redirect IPv4" then we should need "redirect IPv6" too.
And I agree to create new extended community because redirect only has 6-octet encoding(IPv6 address is 16 octet).


Regards,
-Shishio

On 2015/01/13 0:13, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hello Shishio,
> 
> To elaborate a bit more the quote I provided allows you to use IPv6 specific RT to redirect to a VRF. It does not allow to encode IPv6 specific redirect destination address directly in the actions. While your question was a bit not specific on first reading I thought you are asking for the former. On the second reading I realized you may be asking for both :)
> 
> Historically the latter was not done in the draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03 draft as IPv6 address simply does not fit into BGP Extended Community attribute where we have 6 octets to play with.
> 
> If you see a real need for actually encoding IPv6 address as redirect destination we would need to use IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community RFC5701 and define a new type value for it. That may cause a bit mess to handle cases where both such action communities are present.
> 
> - - -
> 
> In general however the RFC5575 was specifically written to avoid all of the above by using a concept of indirection where you first redirect to VRF with plain RT then you can do what you like there. VRF with single default and v4 or v6 next hop would be a perfect case for it. But it seems that few folks wanted more protocol build in automation so the IPv4 as redirect destination was added.
> 
> Now I guess based on your input to IDR is a question if we should update draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03 putting IPv6 redirect destination there or not.
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi@cisco.com <mailto:shtsuchi@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Robert
>     Thanks for reply.
>     Sorry, this was my fault.
>     I skipped to read this section.
>     The draft looks perfect.
> 
> 
>     Regards,
>     -Shishio
> 
>     On 2015/01/12 23:32, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>     > Hello Shishio-san,
>     >
>     > Would the below text already present in the second draft not address your question ?
>     >
>     > Quote:
>     >
>     > Another traffic filtering action defined in [RFC5575] as a BGP extended community is redirect.  To allow an IPv6 address specific route-target, a new traffic action IPv6 address specific extended community is provided.  The extended community type has the value  0x800b.
>     >
>     > Redirect-IPv6: The redirect IPv6 address specific extended community allows the traffic to be redirected to a VRF routing instance that lists the specified IPv6 address specific route-target in its import policy.  If several local instances match this criteria, the choice between them is a local matter (for example, the instance with the lowest Route Distinguisher value can be elected).  This extended community uses the same encoding as the IPv6 address specific Route Target extended community [RFC5701].
>     >
>     > Ref section 4 of:https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-06
>     >
>     > Many thx,
>     > Robert.
>     >
>     >
>     > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi@cisco.com <mailto:shtsuchi@cisco.com> <mailto:shtsuchi@cisco.com <mailto:shtsuchi@cisco.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Hi
>     >     I think we should define type for Flow spec redirect IPv6 format on
>     >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis
>     >
>     >     or
>     >
>     >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
>     >
>     >
>     >     What do you think?
>     >
>     >     Regards,
>     >     -Shishio
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Idr mailing list
>      > Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org> <mailto:Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>      >
>      >
> 
> 
>