IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] BGP Auto discovery - L2 liveliness??

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 20 July 2018 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 6A96F1310A6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 bEJg-eT1raQA for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08F7A130F2C for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1254; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1532106127; x=1533315727; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=AXGT4UE+I6BYEng0rAgVoLsqa2jLvHVDuZR8vCY1uFg=; b=GBwqPD57uDs9UgnKQWQcMGkjJU837zG2IAOdsD8l+9vPtMl7X1nNf2Hq rZRkLmG1JX9IwILoLBB+rYMHfBaoDeNwcGFYOzppYgI/DCSidYRa7qxk0 F0+MWOIdex7Sg1cq36UgRsvvFQ8B0l7FYDt+FkRK5fhU2SMmU/V5DlcFl w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DwAQC6FFJb/5xdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNNY38oCoN0iASMMYFog1ySBIF6CyOESQIXgnUhNBgBAgEBAgEBAm0cDIU3BiMRPgcQAgEIGgImAgICMBUQAgQBDQWDIAGBfw+rOoEuhF2FbgWBC4d3ghaBEScMgl6DGQKBYIMBMYIkAplsCQKPLoFFhBKIG5F6AhEUgSQdOIFScBVlAYI+ixWFPm8BjAeBGwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,380,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="146288923"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jul 2018 17:02:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w6KH25ea023873 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Jul 2018 17:02:06 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:02:05 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:02:05 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: BGP Auto discovery - L2 liveliness??
Thread-Index: AQHUIEB01T6SLTc23kmf3spCW7QnGKSYVkMA
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 17:02:05 +0000
Message-ID: <FB71D237-679F-4688-BD45-8B2349E2CC05@cisco.com>
References: <E461FEB2-11DF-4256-B701-5CD854C5378B@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E461FEB2-11DF-4256-B701-5CD854C5378B@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.114.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <D3B235C28B03FD4CB81D3888D627C567@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.144, xch-rtp-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d-rVeKLOiMYcHRja387IKCRNNx8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Auto discovery - L2 liveliness??
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 20 Jul 2018 17:02:15 -0000

Hi Rajiv, 
This function is described in section 6 of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ymbk-lsvr-lsoe-01.txt. I guess you are questioned whether it should be a requirement of this mechanism. 

Thanks,
Acee 

On 7/20/18, 11:43 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:

    
    Could someone please explain - How is L2 liveliness important for auto-discovery between 2 directly connected BGP neighbors (referring to the topology shown yesterday)? Or is it really meant to benefit the peering relationship (once established) - bring down the peer if L2 fails or vice versa?
    
    Or is it meant to benefit the (tenant/services) traffic (past bgp NLRI exchange) ? Likely not, since  (tenant/services) traffic may be L3 (or MPLS), and L2 liveliness would not be sufficient (after all, L2 can be working, while L3 might not or MPLS might not). 
    
    Cheers,
    Rajiv

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email