IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] questions to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-11: what is the relationship between “Remote Endpoint Sub-TLV” and RFC5512's Endpoint address?

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Fri, 01 March 2019 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@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 E4C0B130FA5; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:34:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 4XKEw_WV6uj8; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:34:55 -0800 (PST)
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 B4B49130FA0; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:34:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7AA4F13632CDB714F7E5; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:34:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:34:50 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.241]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:34:45 -0800
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: questions to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-11: what is the relationship between “Remote Endpoint Sub-TLV” and RFC5512's Endpoint address?
Thread-Index: AdTQgOla+eTe+ysSR/K/BXJ7agKKrw==
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 23:34:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B2C7F9B@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.84]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_006_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B2C7F9Bsjceml521mbschi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WhqKO-eezw4zNje3c421aA6Q1Zk>
Subject: [Idr] questions to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-11: what is the relationship between “Remote Endpoint Sub-TLV” and RFC5512's Endpoint address?
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: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 23:34:58 -0000

Eric, et al,

In RFC5512, the BGP speaker indicates the originating Interface address in the NLRI (section 3):
[cid:image003.jpg@01D4D04E.E9B1D800]



draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-11 has “Remote Endpoint Sub-TLV”. What is the relationship between “Remote Endpoint Sub-TLV” and RFC5512's Endpoint address?


P.s. re-post the questions I asked last months. Hope one of you can answer them.

Thank you very much.

Linda Dunbar


From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 5:05 PM
To: 'Eric C Rosen' <erosen@juniper.net>; draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10: Should add IPsec & IPsec-GRE as valid Tunnel Types

Eric and authors of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10:

Section 3.2 listed VXLAN, VXLAN-GRE, NVGRE, L2TPV3, GRE, MPLS-in-GRE as Tunnel Types.

For some deployment scenarios, two nodes can also have ports facing Internet, which requires IPsec to encapsulate the traffic as shown in the following diagram (described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-idr-bgp-sdwan-overlay-ext/ ):

[cid:image005.png@01D4D04E.E9B1D800]

Can your section 3.2 add IPsec & IPsec-GRE as valid Tunnel Types?
If you don’t think IPsec Tunnel Types should be added, can you explain why?

If Yes, should the “Remote Endpoint Sub-TLV” use the remote Interface (port) addresses (i.e. B1, B2, etc)?  or should the “Remote Endpoint Sub-TLV” use the PE2’s loopback address of 10.1.2.1?

On Page 25 (Section 5), you have a sentence stating:
“Note that some tunnel types may require the execution of an explicit tunnel setup protocol before they can be used for carrying data.”

This is applicable to IPsec tunnel that requires explicit setup protocol, correct?


In RFC5512, the BGP speaker indicates the originating Interface address in the NLRI (section 3):
[cid:image006.jpg@01D4D04E.E9B1D800]


How does draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10 indicate the Tunnel originating interface?

In the Figure above, there are at least 3 tunnels between PE1 <->PE2: T1 (via MPLS), T2 and T3 via IPsec over internet. For a Prefix X reachable via PE2, does PE1 send BGP Update for Prefix X with 3 different Tunnel Encap attributes to all its neighbors?  Say PE4?  Those Tunnel information is really between PE1<->P2, other nodes, e.g. PE4 really doesn’t need to know, correct?


Thank you very much for the help.
Linda Dunbar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email