Re: [Idr] Color domains in BGP routes with color

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 23 March 2022 12:31 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 28F873A0EFA for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 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_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 cDn98U4qd-lO for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x931.google.com (mail-ua1-x931.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::931]) (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 78D533A0E0A for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x931.google.com with SMTP id w21so625298uan.3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:31:35 -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=/uv+otZolqIFogPAfpzgst3Y+bKe8RzMzldtmMxwFDk=; b=erM66nW1aJuvb1Vt1cieccO5iVvAGDhGl/AyKCI1XGz+VIwAuC1+ySlsZC9QL98NZP JLpSgdoNGG7zeWaQBPlQ2uVrMo8qQXcNmPSlBJ/UgQvMVneDPVK0/nfGOzg64fhlutcC 40wuZW0Pr1a0N0lXavaYnKjwmvpWWePdfCLaxZxlGoNAYwr4tvVO8t0wZntytjoqof60 8CWAXlnYRy5Do14DGB/SaD1s5MlUC4jgAy7G0SWaFod+ry3iPfv7n2W6dD0sIvAsoN22 3zqf4vYhC1GydW9X7EX3ZfKAvRMmSPXyZILpQHktDMMd2nc3Zl4mgf6n1pCWCKCq9Z3k nwDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/uv+otZolqIFogPAfpzgst3Y+bKe8RzMzldtmMxwFDk=; b=1OiCpic9Z5t39tTbU1uNZA1r1ThcEdw7t2azuP4zqIKKWGefmuqlwzAXHqLNmXVt4f EKn5hq7Nq+5UEX5/hzLXPrpUoju8Im3QaQG/pnPslxbR5GJWFZIme/MDYt8G/wb3Skcw TTRJ1K9m9cCLB/Qg1qPk6bN+UvyI4Q34E9oWKpQBzuA586SLP3t798ML+2/NdPz7Itey GxA6CZz+Dv7PAsQmStlqEVo2sKRRFVkmEPznPZAnczbEyTek+j0R9GKH18yIDe1qzhf/ dVzEyS2zk7SBuSbA+8AuREG9HAcg4DL1dOk+aL4nnxBGKwGHWqwDDvpguKt+YuFWrFf8 M/eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533dkRI0+spRBDvzIiPIWEdlk2IQAXtIeQ+2jPHFvsXmLGF4OvmN pbCN9avMFmF5Dc5gl5zbuk0LPd39CCqWGX1wpNkQ2w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8lX8oYTAw8Mreqicsf0cNdP1WK3Bt8AO5WijYU9txp4j67wHoYVMIH6ECsIXkdF9JgjQ2dE7VpbqaGzEr2M0=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:69d0:0:b0:345:72b0:ee12 with SMTP id u16-20020ab069d0000000b0034572b0ee12mr11242442uaq.78.1648038694151; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220322192622.GV4905@pfrc.org> <202203231531514641635@zte.com.cn> <20220323095042.GZ4905@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220323095042.GZ4905@pfrc.org>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:31:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGneu65yqgw85hPgQRQKRUha7gt3viRmYbJW+2F4vrT8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f10f8e05dae1e8f6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cyF2NbTWV3kmnt_dRylCQPDb4_g>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Color domains in BGP routes with color
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: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:31:40 -0000

All,

My intention is to illustrate that for each of the two proposals below
> that as routes go from one domain to another that there are situations
> where
> remapping may have issues.


Practically speaking I am not so sure about the value of complexity
introduced by the notion of remapping colors at domain boundaries. That
goes against the KISS principle.

Instead of remapping I would simply propagate tuples (ASN-Color). Now the
meaning of color in each domain has to be known via some form of publishing
it. Be it a web page or pub-sub or xyz is a different topic.

Why do we need to keep colors flat ? Moreover colors signalled by BGP
interdomain may not be the same as intradomain colors as build by some
constrained protocol.

Here is why I posting the above doubt:

* if things are under same admin control we could presume there is no
issue. When you build policy which takes into account each domain's color
mapped to some anchor points (on the edge or within a domain) and therefor
end to end path will likely be formed and work as expected

* if things are not under same administration each color/class may mean
completely separate thing unless we define in stone what it should mean.
And if we do that there is no need to remap anything any longer.

Thx a lot,
R.