Re: [Idr] [Responses for the comments during the IETF108] New Version Notification for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-01.txt

"UTTARO, JAMES" <> Thu, 06 August 2020 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379FE3A0AEE for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 05:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.796
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yy27Pq2vi8FF for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 05:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3E133A08B9 for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 05:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 076Cg0W5038203; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 08:52:50 -0400
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 32rfbn2e5r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 06 Aug 2020 08:52:49 -0400
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 076Cqmxc024577; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 08:52:49 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 076CqgHa024483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 08:52:42 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Service) with ESMTP id 280114009E73; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:52:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Service) with ESMTPS id 0826A4009E6E; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:52:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 08:52:39 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 08:52:39 -0400
From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <>
To: Aijun Wang <>, Gyan Mishra <>
CC: Keyur Patel <>, "" <>, Robert Raszuk <>, idr <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] [Responses for the comments during the IETF108] New Version Notification for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-01.txt
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:52:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: 1A8202CDA9AA316F4DCB8D8A180B712A325584EEB91C098DEC7F853849BB4B842
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_9c4a5bbd9370474ba8ca1723540fcd3battcom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-06_06:2020-08-06, 2020-08-06 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008060091
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Responses for the comments during the IETF108] New Version Notification for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-01.txt
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: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 12:53:16 -0000

Comments In-Line

Jim Uttaro

From: Idr <> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 7:30 AM
To: Gyan Mishra <>
Cc: Keyur Patel <>om>;; Robert Raszuk <>et>; idr <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Responses for the comments during the IETF108] New Version Notification for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-01.txt

Hi, Gyan and Robert:

Maximum Prefix Limit is one method to control the routes between PE and CE, but we should not depend only on it.
[Jim U>] Why? You can also simply send the default to the CE from the PE if a customer orders that feature?

RD-ORF can limit the influence scope of misbehavior PE as small as possible.

RT-ORF can suppress the routes from unwanted VRFs, but can’t suppress the overflow routes in VRF that it is interested.

More details responses are inline below.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom

On Aug 6, 2020, at 18:02, Gyan Mishra <> wrote:

Hi Robert

I am in agreement as you stated that most service providers from my experience use the per VRF prefix limit to protect resources.  Problem solved as you said 20+ years ago.

That is a general rule of thumb for any service providers to perform due diligence on their PE memory resource carving per VRF and set it appropriately based on platform and total number of VRFs to account for.

Problem solved on the SP end.

On the customer end, they can also use the maximum prefix peer command as well to prevent flood of routes in case of unwanted advertisements from unintentional VRF leaking by providers.

Kind Regards


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 5:49 AM Robert Raszuk <<>> wrote:
Hi Gyan,

Thank you for your comments - all very valid observations.

Just to perhaps clarify one thing ... Problem authors are attempting to address - the way I understand it - is that given resource may be suffering from actually legitimate VPN routes hence to use RTC indeed a lot of additional RTs would have to be applied.

But I do not understand why authors fail to recognize that solution for their problem has been invented and implemented over 20 years ago already. The solution is to control on a per *ingress* VRF basis number of VPN routes customer is authorized to inject into his VPN with eBGP PE-CE prefix limit.

[WAJ] we have mentioned prefix limit solutions in the draft and analysis its applicability scope.

Most SPs offering L3VPNs use prefix limit successfully to protect their shared resources for vast majority of customers and deployments. For VPN customers with unpredictable amount of routing CSC model should be used instead.

By all means filtering and dropping accepted into SP network VPN route should not take place.


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:41 AM Gyan Mishra <<>> wrote:
Hi Aijun

I agree with Robert that you cannot filter by RD or you would drop all the routes and filtering must be done by RT.  Also the issue with RT ORF filter is as Robert mentioned that you may have the same prefix with two different RTs which is common unique by RD and so the ORF would drop the prefixes.

[WAJ] Such situation can only happen at the extraVPN scenarios which should be designed carefully——one must keep the prefixes in these VRFs not overlap. But if the prefixes in these VRFs are not overlap, why do we need to separate them in different VRFs?
In conclusion, this is just corner case and should be avoided in design.

I am not sure I understand what problem you are trying to solve that is not already solved by RTC membership so that only RTs imported by the PE are what is advertised by the RR.  That is most effective way of cutting down the RT flooding that occurs in the RR to PE advertisement.  RT filtering is enabled by Default on all PEs and only if the RT is imported on the PE are the RTs accepted into the vpn rib. That works pretty well in cutting down RT advertisements by the RR.

As Robert mentioned each VRF has a maximum prefix which is defined on the PE RIBs per VRF and in general on most current or even hardware within the last 10 years is a minimum 1M prefixes per VRF is pretty standard with most vendors and platforms.  The vpn rib limit is much much higher on the higher end platforms.

You draft talks about inter-as issues solved with RT-ORF.  So when PE-PE inter-as option B by default all RTs are dropped due to default RT filtering and only RTs that are accepted are those RTS that are explicitly being imported on the PE ASBR.  There is an option for retain route-target all that disabled the default RT filtering so that all VPN routes can be accepted on the inter-as option B link.  However a RT filter can still be applied to the retian-route-target all so that only pertinent RTs are accepted inter domain.  That seems to work pretty well.

As far as inter-as option C, the PE-PE ASBRs do not maintain the VPN RIB.  BGP LU is enabled on the inter-as link for end to end LSP by importing the loopback between ASs for the end to end LSPto be built.   The RRs between the SPs have eBGP VPN IPv4 VPN IPV6 peer with next hop unchanged so the data plane gets built between the PEs.  The RR by default does not have RT filtering enabled by default as does the PE, so is able to reflect all the vpn routes learned to all PEs within each AS.  In the inter-as scenario as well RTC works very well with the RT membership to cut down on RR to PE vpn route advertisements.

Kind Regards


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:49 PM Aijun Wang <<>> wrote:
Hi, Robert:

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

On Aug 6, 2020, at 00:14, Robert Raszuk <<>> wrote:

[WAJ] The VPN routes imported in these VRFs can’t use the same RD, or else, the VPN prefixes in different VRFs will collision on RR.

Nothing will "collide" on RRs.

NLRI = RD+Prefix  not just the RD.

[WAJ] The prefix part can be overlap in different VRF. If the RD is same, RD+Prefix will also be overlap.
We must make sure different VRF use different RD to make the VPN prefixes unique within the domain.

So you may have completely different prefixes sourced by the same VRF going to completely different VRFs on same or different PEs.

[WAJ] This situation is for extraVPN communication, and should be designed carefully to avoid the address collision..
If the address space in different VRF need to be considered in such manner, putting them in one VRF may be more straightforward.

Kind regards,

Idr mailing list<><>

[Image removed by sender.]<>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike <>
Silver Spring, MD<>


[Image removed by sender.]<>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD