Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-redist-01.txt

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Thu, 01 July 2021 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.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 4BA8C3A1BFD for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 13:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, 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=gmail.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 lKS_deWZCY2B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 13:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 4143A3A1BFB for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 13:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id a15so14120068lfr.6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 13:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rtjcifKPQV/4C6mDNZyyRX9pnaKLGNSqCDEfi4IrpSg=; b=no45HTwzurzDZkWum2l9vobVIBCPtx6Uy25jiLtMUjiumyYiyapjmi1bjJpjGkQSkK /7ZmISE3DX/fft0b2kHu9Y7XJ4e4Pd3VVGLjxKvu9GZBzTpxGRb7NHVcX3/9S6ffEHqU LZXiJJkniOWRnYwhEMl5jaB9NHFy1OSXIb9w+ExpXitmyfCkuuiCc93SanW9iaRuale4 qCnuGHCOUX5z+lfH3mXAst680OHpBeMQ1Dy5tLHyGECHDDSrsYfAkxc6dITdQxaI3nTS E5GT7rMHAJkxgWXUIYJ9JIQRDY7LkDvEYUaFm1IDUoCC3cMwz9p7/I5zJJtQJ2pzPiYI KC5g==
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=rtjcifKPQV/4C6mDNZyyRX9pnaKLGNSqCDEfi4IrpSg=; b=AnfKZcb3MbZnJAuV+ZxYyFcCQhcJkc3fv0saEtwGqOHFBa5flyTLwlxCS9PBHzx915 B1T/FEHCDkSjVhuKW0iYuBj1fFh+1T4NGJhv5F+ZVBqrd/RwQK32wHVsM8IffR/M25Hp 7/MXlUIrnPCt+cYFXxP2SYld9lJVCU1vmXzB+Oy/yurholuXT6Ur0GnGj2AHSMAFO6EZ 3dBVTPnSPzCqjeiXNUFhaIoBEn5w9fgWnGcrUGw1/+EBrGeqKLqrPUu6esDD7uXXPPsX OAswL1Up0yseTDJ1o1tt0iYQy2yIsOudnBUZxXY7fhl0iS5EZ51c8U83/z+7vwVVk8uF WMTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532l5zqTJskU4YtrbTg/TA47WHgxuoXLXAG4G6bS4mn0gzIe8PP5 89DZoYCZRwXsqKj5m8EG6wKVeXuMeddCBgW/AcjuBS95
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzq4SoS/CUrxlBz5Wd2k79hKRQ7FEXfYkDcMZSpFu29MYUA5FpAyOaj3tK46VvHvZMF9jrzgiOrYwi+GvK5590=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4944:: with SMTP id o4mr1118230lfi.510.1625172106127; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 13:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANJ8pZ_2yk666tSca818-e0YdziKjK3dMqhopOtYAP3vKXTEmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MME5zZeZDnhpfivbdKj00JwBzi9rjMmzBXxE_fFqkxEVpA@mail.gmail.com> <CANJ8pZ9Und3fF324tzTAkhrMFV0MZfhHYfZussiYSCNUx-n_Hw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3BXk=+fuxVSg_9j+u+5Ffr+NQGE9P75NCPpTaUr5LqYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMFxM_yvrPDEyQ+dpO7ZxoiQKa0DE4ZQf763Cuidj76QXg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFxM_yvrPDEyQ+dpO7ZxoiQKa0DE4ZQf763Cuidj76QXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 13:41:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH1iCirqM8wB7AhiGRJdwxLsxMoRFrB-UebU6xhpyjZ87btezw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, Jenny Yuan <jyuan@paloaltonetworks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="00000000000015c68105c615de08"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eDI2A-vdKYzDPouizjkyrjwyMfQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-redist-01.txt
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: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 20:41:56 -0000

Top-reply, sorry if anyone doesn't like that.

So, serious question:
What if the solution to this problem is simply, "do not redistribute
anything into BGP"?
(If that is the case, maybe changing this draft to say that and nothing
else is the best approach?)

Specifically, instead of doing any redistributes, configure a prefix as
locally originated (in cisco-speak, "network" within a BGP config section,
IIRC).
The BGP rules would result in it being announced into BGP if and only if it
is (and only while it continues to be) resolvable (i.e. has a next hop in
the RIB, I believe.)

Does this actually fix the problem?
(I have never liked redistribution, as it leads to a lot of funky behavior,
including extraneous update messages that pollute the global BGP DFZ.)

Brian

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 11:55 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> Gyan,
>
> > My understanding is by default most all implementations that I know of
> for example Cisco & Juniper which have use identical default AD
>
> Can you provide source(s) of your above information ?
>
> To the best of my knowledge they are quite different ...
>
> Cisco:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Juniper:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Except connected I do not see much of "identical default AD"
>
> And that is as the draft says especially important when your intention is
> to control active - backup paths for a given net.
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:02 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Enke
>>
>> My understanding is by default most all implementations that I know of
>> for example Cisco & Juniper which have use identical default AD,
>> redistribution of the route only occurs from the source protocol that is
>> being redistributed for example static versus OSPF or ISIS based on AD.
>>
>> So if you have multiple protocols redistribution into BGP, the source
>> protocol with the lowest AD is what is inserted into the default RIB/FIB
>> and its that specific route from the source protocol that is redistributed
>> into BGP.   All implementations that I know of work that way.
>>
>> I don’t see any issue with deterministic redistribution as exists today
>> with implementations.
>>
>> Normally you are only running one IGP but let’s say you are running OSPF
>> and ISIS and you have a Juniper and Cisco ASBR redistribution into BGP, as
>> OSPF has default AD 110, the OSPF prefix would be inserted into the Default
>> RIB and redistributed into BGP.  Let’s say you set AD for ISIS down to 90
>> and now the ISIS route is inserted into the RIB and now both Juniper and
>> Cisco ASBR Will redistribute the ISIS route into BGP.
>>
>> I am not seeing the issue that you are trying to solve.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:19 AM Enke Chen <enchen@paloaltonetworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Robert:
>>>
>>> 1) Usually the default admin-distance is configurable. Having the same
>>> admin-distance across implementations would certainly make things simpler,
>>> but that is not required. What matters is the local_pref value for the
>>> redistribute backup route:
>>>
>>>             local_pref = default_local_pref - delta;
>>>
>>> It needs to be in the right order (relatively) for the "role" the route
>>> is supposed to play.
>>>
>>> It's a good question. We will try to clarify it in the next revision.
>>>
>>> 2) Certainly it would work if we define the "delta" (or "local_pref")
>>> for the redistributed route based on its role (e.g., primary, secondary,
>>> tertiary). But extra config would be needed for specifying the "role".  The
>>> algorithm described in the draft does not require additional config other
>>> than the existing "admin-distance".  When more than two paths are involved
>>> in a multi-vendor environment, the admin-distance needs to be carefully
>>> assigned in order to get the desired local_pref value.
>>>
>>> Thanks.   -- Enke
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 1:05 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Enke,
>>>>
>>>> How do you assure that admin distance is the same or delta would be the
>>>> same across implementations ?
>>>>
>>>> Looking at say junos I see quite different values then when comparing
>>>> with other implementations ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/general/routing-protocols-default-route-preference-values.html
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.juniper.net_documentation_en-5FUS_junos_topics_reference_general_routing-2Dprotocols-2Ddefault-2Droute-2Dpreference-2Dvalues.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=iUboWFiSpP9QvSDj9hoG8_DO7R_8EOQvfEHnwyX-mc0&s=GOhXjwEf1z0GAfIQVgVAc4sHvcAog6czTO30VhKwzQk&e=>
>>>>
>>>> Would it be simpler to define here verbatim what the local pref should
>>>> be for redistributed routes ? Then at least those could be used as default
>>>> local pref values unless overwritten by operator's policy during
>>>> redistribution.
>>>>
>>>> Thx,
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:14 PM Enke Chen <enchen@paloaltonetworks.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Folks:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies for the very long delay in updating the draft:
>>>>>
>>>>>        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-bgp-redist/01/
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dchen-2Dbgp-2Dredist_01_&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=iUboWFiSpP9QvSDj9hoG8_DO7R_8EOQvfEHnwyX-mc0&s=IBn3kTJmGrWISvSq8L3M9GLLamXIqw7t2PvEdtvhmos&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue still exists, and shows up from time to time. The revised
>>>>> version provides a complete solution that covers the use cases involving a
>>>>> single router as well as multiple routers in a network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your review and comments are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.   -- Enke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Idr mailing list
>>>>> Idr@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=iUboWFiSpP9QvSDj9hoG8_DO7R_8EOQvfEHnwyX-mc0&s=O1wpTf7XmDmE4-mQGDJ9YNEx2UVZW-k1meY3fd-tQrE&e=>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idr mailing list
>>> Idr@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>
>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>