[Idr] 答复: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Fri, 24 July 2020 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@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 F2E483A0DC5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 DZ1lHVcEpHAk for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
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 0F2303A0DC2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 46240CB44AC805C0DD4C for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:33:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.76) by lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:33:11 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) by lhreml725-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:33:11 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.215]) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 17:33:06 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
CC: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)
Thread-Index: AQHWXz8ym9GzHFxZgUORXFcws+XORakWeWSe
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:33:05 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937E6CD2@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <003701d65aa9$689a64d0$39cf2e70$@ndzh.com> <BYAPR11MB32072C364496472F6BB8FBD4C07C0@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR13MB3117DB85FAE31F34D6575B41F2780@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>, <CAOj+MMH34b+KyrthWnhx3hgL8a_9e0ujSe3YN2qUX7sZc5Tnfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMH34b+KyrthWnhx3hgL8a_9e0ujSe3YN2qUX7sZc5Tnfw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.220.21]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937E6CD2DGGEMM532MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/axu2yJkDz0265y_c-XSglskzy-k>
Subject: [Idr] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFdHIExDIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtaWRyLXJw?= =?gb2312?b?ZC0wNS50eHQgKDcvMTUgdG8gNy8yOS8yMDIwKQ==?=
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, 24 Jul 2020 09:33:16 -0000

Hi Robert,

I cannot see the absolute difference between the SR Policy and the RPD regarding the point you mentioned to look them as the config push.



Regarding your proposal, maybe we can. We also ever proposed the following draft.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-02



But it seems a little conflicted about your viewpoints. Now such cases can be seen as the special cases of BGP. But if we define the general solutions,

it will go to change your claimed essence of p2mp for BGP you are defending :)







Best Regards,

Zhenbin (Robin)















________________________________
发件人: Idr [idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Robert Raszuk [robert@raszuk.net]
发送时间: 2020年7月21日 17:12
收件人: Huaimo Chen
抄送: Jakob Heitz (jheitz); Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)


SR policies propagation is a config push and should never be done in BGP. At least it is p2mp. Much better option here is https://tools.ietf..org/html/rfc5440<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440>

Your draft is p2p configuration push which is completely an NMS task. Please tell me why it can not be done with YANG models ?

Maybe instead of picking up one cherry at a time let's define a new AFI/SAFI - "BGP NMS AF" and stuff all of the p2p configuration there. At least when things melt it will be easy to recover by just disabling such AF and still allow for some routing info to go through ....

Thx,
R.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:00 AM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com<mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>> wrote:
Hi Jakob,

    Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
    Our answers/explanations are inline below with prefix [HC].

Best Regards,
Huaimo on behalf of co-authors
________________________________
From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 9:01 PM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org> <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)


BGP seems the wrong way to distribute routing policy.


[HC]: It seems that BGP flow spec has been used widely to distribute policies for redirecting the traffic. It seems work well without some mechanisms in Netconf. BGP RPD should be similar to BGP flow spec.  BGP SR Policy is on the same train.


IETF has already defined a way to distribute configuration: Netconf.

Netconf provides needed features that BGP does not have:

- Atomic Transactions:

  If one configuration item fails, they all fail.

  They all either succeed or all fail. There is no partial success.

  Multiple configurations in one transaction are applied at the same time.

   . This avoids non-deterministic transient behavior between application of the first policy and the last.

- Feedback:

  BGP is "spray and pray".

  Netconf provides an acknowledgement that the config either failed or was applied,

  which then allows the controller to take the next steps with

  reliable information about what configuration exists in the network.

- Persistence:

  If the BGP session were to go down, all the configuration it sent will be implicitly withdrawn.



If another AS would not allow a foreign AS to configure it with netconf,

it would not allow it with RPD either.



There are already ways in BGP for an AS to signal preference across AS boundaries:

Med, AS-path length, communities.


[HC]: Netconf can be used to distribute configurations from a controller to the devices in a network. BGP RPD as an alternative option, may have some advantages in some cases. For example, in the case where BGP as a controller, BGP RPD seems more suitable. Using BGP RPD to control/redirect the traffic dynamically in real time may be more effective.



Regards,

Jakob.



From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 6:11 AM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)



This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd

from 7/15 to 7/29/2020.  You can obtain this draft at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rpd/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C12cf72daefe0446d5a7908d829ed0a36%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637305445341383523&sdata=3LvgG6xwElOv27jGetqpyk8ftRub%2B%2B4Ui31Yt8wN87A%3D&reserved=0>



This draft defines a new AFI/SAFI and new atoms

for the Wide Communities.  This WG LC has been delayed

as I waited for a resubmission of the Wide Communities draft.

I had hoped to do these 2 WG LC in parallel.



I’ve not received the Wide Communities draft, but we will

start this WGLC to provide feedback to the authors.

We may have to run a short follow-up to this WG LC

If there are changes to the Wide Communities draft during

Its WG LC.



There is an IPR statement on this draft.



In your responses please answer the following questions:



1) Do you feel this draft has an solution that is acceptable

   With the IPR as a WG RFC?



2) Do you feel this draft is ready to publish?



3) Do you know of implementations of this draft?



4) Do you know of deployments of this draft?

If so, is this feature useful in the deploy ments.



5) Do you feel that Wide Communities is ready for

Publication?



Cheerily, Susan Hares

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr