Re: [Idr] 答复: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 06:05 UTC
Return-Path: <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.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 B1F88120834; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:05:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 fRY__AmaPd1K; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (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 D042C120829; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id i13so21849399ioj.5; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:05:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sDtnYiq8lv+Qp+hnDznXkQ1x5tzpswBWzxBr1mGo3cw=; b=e5EzZJi8zk/uwgtfLUMpmzQ7xRq2umFu2waH67OpiLwnT/g+2tyRluCjbndYM7PhOb bZEl+7Hv8edIMqd5QCoiTMea+48aYF+f/RckOjPOhUGrgoNvLNgzmsez/J2pKVVZo77F ET5vUykRyMaQ/dJ8NfRmiykstiK7/SA32km0LDygPdO0hGj94RVFq3SvNhB9iKXn60m3 I++m431EQOvrRtr0iAMvlavOOpEmyfqdhQxKg8jjkBdc0j1Vx38xtRmhw/l4systR7Yi VDBcHnlNZ3Jq/49QDJ+d44VX1chWXSlPE7BRvwdMLJZNSab5hvurFrJd+Gl9rSI6OdgI NjtQ==
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=sDtnYiq8lv+Qp+hnDznXkQ1x5tzpswBWzxBr1mGo3cw=; b=mbA6PwhD3Bi64Ws0ZDHd+Ih2jcKUzpYEOYg2K11Tt9MaDuPm6b0Rkw93nDuXnAo/k0 pX2dxhb2dnx1URuUDf16l/YSJ8HMWH0dMq/Giu/bjPWmzjdR7CvQRZwQu5kPhtDer2Mo 2YcBtMnwOT73xmFKwjUxq1mPC8aPYwReg6ZcB1GUH8JG+96JS74CccFpFpEOXAGWgABI fPyZJFZe1cxErmqVFmiiv94lyRFbhPQV7UUPPQ8O7164PkCpwKs/XvbNOemX10i5LLAF zwJIvr5u+rAlKfpVFwh+SW1wH/99J6uE/1P7iRRjoRzmCwlj7oJ90ZYdwxurs6aT78Dx fAhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVDpRjLab2tSLvVkTShfzeRM5LCt8FZnMhxNdOGznn4mZzlKPiH MafkJkgpPuLxd10dmFQnYJ48AJX1j/2TACM3XQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx46OxdZOhR/f+vKP1El9t5Tdx6hPUYgf6iXTOyOJZswZgW0tAeqZy5h+Z09NcF0+il6M93WyB5/R/Hee8gfZs=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9204:: with SMTP id u4mr15400222iod.99.1574143542831; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:05:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C8F2E20@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20190826203850.GH24671@pfrc.org> <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C90DB78@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20191118110851.GK21134@pfrc.org> <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C9DC694@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C9DC694@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:03:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CABY-gOM=YDN8gQUAXW2KeiGdXMxBUKiiZAkCiFEGG5SQUaNoXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b230780597acdab2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NK_EXSHjZbEidWEcwPrQe_PI5BM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 答复: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 06:05:52 -0000
Hi Jeff, I would think it makes more sense to do this binding in BGP module because it is sort of a special case related with BGP, but I'm not sure what's the best way to do it. possible solutions: 1. add a reference 2. add a configuration 3. ... Thanks, Yingzhen On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 8:49 AM Wanghaibo (Rainsword) < rainsword.wang@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > My question is similar to "how do you bind a given routing > instance (e.g. VRF) to a given BGP session?" > > Now multiple vendors have implemented this feature. > They don't bind a vrf to a given BGP session, but bind to different > public bgp instance. > > For example: > bgp instance 1 as 100 > neighbor A remote-as 100 > address-family ipv4-vpn, evpn enabled > neighbor B remote-as 200 > address-family ipv4-vpn enabled > bgp instance 2 as 200 > neighbor C remote-as 200 > address-family evpn enabled > vrf vrf1 > bgp instance-toCE1 as 65001 > neighbors ... > vrf vrf2 > ospf instance-toCE2 > areas... > > Vrf1 bind to bgp instance 1 > Vrf1's VPN routes will advertised through bgp instance 1's neighbor > A&B, through VPNv4 or EVPN family > Vrf2 bind to bgp instance 2 > Vrf2's VPN routes will advertised through bgp instance 2's neighbor C, > through EVPN family. > The two bgp instance are separate from each other. > > It seems like vrf1 bind to neighbor A&B, vrf2 bind to neighbor C. > But the neighbors are contained in a bgp instance. ( neighbor A&B in > bgp instance 1, neighbor C in bgp instance2) > > According to RFC8022, we can create multiple bgp instance for > public routing. > But now we cannot specify one vrf how to bind to one bgp instance's > according to current bgp model. > > Regards, > Haibo > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] > 发送时间: 2019年11月18日 19:09 > 收件人: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> > 抄送: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model > > Per IDR mic comment, copying once again to IDR since I mis-laid the mail. > My apologies, Haibo. > > If I understand your comment correctly, your question is "how do you bind > a given routing instance (e.g. VRF) to a given BGP session?" > > If so, I think you are correct. We do not have a clean way to specify > this. > It may also have impacts on the network instancing model in general. Let > us raise the issue with netmod working group. > > -- Jeff > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:39:17AM +0000, Wanghaibo (Rainsword) wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > > > I have read this example. But it doesn't solve my doubts. > > If I have two public bgp instance like this: > > "ietf-routing:routing": { > > "router-id": "192.0.2.1", > > "control-plane-protocols": { > > "control-plane-protocol": [ > > { > > "type": "ietf-routing:bgp", > > "name": "bgp0", > > "description": > > "Bgp for CustomerA.", > > "bgp": { > > "neighbors":{ > > "neighbor":[ > > { > > "remote-address":"192.0.2.1", > > "peer-as":"64497" > > "afi-safis":{ > > "afi-safi":[ > > "afi-safi-name":"bt:l3vpn-ipv4-unicast" > > ] > > } > > } > > ] > > } > > } > > } > > ] > > "control-plane-protocol": [ > > { > > "type": "ietf-routing:bgp", > > "name": "bgp1", > > "description": > > "Static routing is used for the internal network.", > > "bgp": { > > "neighbors":{ > > "neighbor":[ > > { > > "remote-address":"192.0.3.1", > > "peer-as":"64497" > > "afi-safis":{ > > "afi-safi":[ > > "afi-safi-name":"bt:l2vpn-evpn" > > ] > > } > > } > > ] > > } > > } > > } > > ] > > }, > > > > And I have two vrf instance like : > > "ietf-network-instance:network-instances": { > > "network-instance": [ > > { > > "name": "vrf-old", > > ... > > } > > ] > > } > > "ietf-network-instance:network-instances": { > > "network-instance": [ > > { > > "name": "vrf-new", > > ... > > } > > ] > > } > > > > I want to specify the vrf-old use bgp0 to advertise routes using > l3vpn-ipv4-unicast, and use bgp1 for vrf-new to advertise routes using > l2vpn-evpn with type5. > > So how can I do this ? > > > > Regards, > > Haibo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:39 AM > > To: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> > > Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:32:01PM +0000, Wanghaibo (Rainsword) wrote: > > > Hi authors, > > > > > > I have some question about the bgp model. > > > > > > In current model, the bgp module will augment to routing, > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols > > > /rt:control-plane-protocol: > > > And the routing will schema mount to network-instance. > > > > > > In this model, how to realize the multiple bgp public instance, like > > > that > > > > > > bgp instance 1 as-number 100 > > > neighbor 2.2.2.2 > > > address-family vpn-ipv4 > > > vrf vpn1 > > > neighbor 11.1.1.1 > > > address-family ipv4 > > > > > > bgp instance 2 as-number 200 > > > neighbor 3.3.3.3 > > > address-family vpn-ipv4 > > > vrf vpn2 > > > neighbor 12.1.1.1 > > > address-family ipv4 > > > > > > Bgp doesn't like ospf or isis, the vrf's bgp will associate to public > bgp's special address family. > > > I'm not find how to describe the associate in current model > > > > The bgp model uses NMDA: > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" > > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > > > > You may find this example from RFC 8349 helpful: > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8349 > > > > : Appendix D. Data Tree Example > > : [...] > > : > > : > > : "ietf-routing:routing": { > > : "router-id": "192.0.2.1", > > : "control-plane-protocols": { > > : "control-plane-protocol": [ > > : { > > : "type": "ietf-routing:static", > > : "name": "st0", > > : "description": > > : "Static routing is used for the internal network.", > > : > > > > The definition of control plane protocols permits multi-instancing via > name: > > > > : container control-plane-protocols { > > : description > > : "Support for control-plane protocol instances."; > > : list control-plane-protocol { > > : key "type name"; > > : description > > > > -- Jeff > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >
- [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Jeffrey Haas
- [Idr] 答复: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] 答复: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model Acee Lindem (acee)