Re: [Idr] draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer - Feedback requested

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 24 April 2021 09:28 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 9A47E3A1875 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 02:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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=raszuk.net
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 ikCgK3ENg1Nl for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 02:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 CE0333A1872 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 02:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id j4so41564762lfp.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 02:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PUtbXavmG/vtSY592+m/WPEbDxUdmZTI4XYQjH7ypNs=; b=RBTRW9cPNImJzPGkKy+Q28zNl0IKE3mlu5BtMPSoGhg4FIctQhYuy2NlAaVjx+KBoX 6xdl00FFu3jun1GrFjFJz1V3q1W1zUYX/veNYintRDD/iGg6lMt+GJhxa/bvXM58YfqT tjlwPq7D7VpZzXhfNMR+wU8olR+MF714gs/EUaeMrOjftyFEQhbMbo03M8BP9M9r5Sc5 GJKYZEZTyq3ZBpE6bvod8fnklGEoFmz5qFRKdXVSKBMMtRvtiboK3QRL/tQHaHU3x4mt wClk50hfUZ1YSUnOtoVWlwblof/YHFqWqMbrQrG2eTFkFEujgNl5xmB8LHOx7/0Yj+0o O4/A==
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=PUtbXavmG/vtSY592+m/WPEbDxUdmZTI4XYQjH7ypNs=; b=l+cDBVhqvKsY62y8oR6fOBu9pHqtUWyJTdzaLEAHGTmZq6SXJDw7cxhhlC7B4ZouOR eWukpmZ0ElXIvLQL5xEiJD2yFATzK1y0Eacqw5Vya3U6AjG5NnsphTYEyVGxaKkk0K7i I1+lE6HGWMuwLIpCernEdOokA1D5QWypKMuOo31rip+id20GCWcCcuCE4KbEhfZfpw6h bhLi+1kTpYGLUzvA8VEr6EiwpbdX7MitAhFeUftIjJE12sXRt0cpQR50v+jOXnlSts2v 9Yhz7+FVLu+nyTClctxpmikqXSGyGeStgpINuGFGFWEY/Ou2P7Y50MfUxfJsCu06Jnjj CT7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5329wZacJUUpEM18iNxfX7gtp2au8hqSdkayTp2c1asNjd2P4QXI IPIAXOY3g7/VsFDuUv5bDCqC2zw/sa0y6xmM1YFEsKkJX4TOcA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxRH/G5ekL0CeDCpcktrb48q0zk9S8IJ0tnXlLjlTJGDtA3Q5o7JOZK1WPEYNxpDMAF1u3qbjVfhSHzz/0DtJU=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:46f5:: with SMTP id q21mr826181lfo.541.1619256480338; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 02:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL=9YSVy+mvxvAv+maxkUSzPbe0bfnUy-XJJTtcVhi3S3bm=WQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210423212348.GB19004@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMGH+y-gxSLaakknWSPFLEk9ikkUU1fa=3H0FjkokAbg3w@mail.gmail.com> <20210424004838.GC19004@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210424004838.GC19004@pfrc.org>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:27:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMH5yzpPZjdUcfXV4cxCORqCsQY4X+niBjnwxjPfN-tsJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: Ben Cox <ben=40benjojo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fa72505c0b4873f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/asvX6GW3YSaznqiYXs9QzzJUxL8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer - Feedback requested
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: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:28:08 -0000

Hi Jeff,

> So what we are discussing is breaking data plane just because control
> plane
> > has experienced 15 min (or worse recommended 4 min) inability to send
> > keepalives.
>
> A good analogy is the negative impacts of stale routes when you use
> Graceful
> Restart for BGP.  Can you live with the routes in that flavor of stale for
> that long?
>

Unfortunately the answer is "it depends". If my stale route is single
default to the world with working data plane I think the answer is clearly
YES.

So that IMHO sort of raises the question if this should be the default
behaviour.

Then honestly I am not quite clear how it should be handled on sessions
which are setup with draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-00

> * Should we perhaps test data plane before declaring peer's failure and
> > before we reset the session ? (I understand that the paramount motivation
> > is BGP consistency here though - but this is one of those cases where one
> > size may not fit all).
>
> In many of these scenarios, BFD or ping would show the interface up.  It's
> the TCP session that is stalled out.
>

True.

I was rather thinking about checking data plane not to the subject peer but
beyond it (through it). For iBGP - testing next hops. For eBGP some known
test servers in yr network or in the Internet.



> > * Should we first withdraw received routes from our peers before
> resetting
> > the session ? At least data plane will have a chance to converge to a
> > different set of links with no sudden packet drops.
>
> Would you describe the drain scenario with the involved parties and what
> the
> congestion state is as part of that?  I don't think I'm understanding the
> above point.



If I know I will bring BGP sessions down to you (in any case not only with
this draft) I should withdraw paths from all of my peers received over such
session and previously advertised (as best or as add-paths) before
resetting it. So the control plane clears before we touch the data plane.
Just to make the end to end reachability with no or minimal data plane
impact.

 Thx,
R.