Re: [Idr] Error in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery use of Encapsulation Extended Community

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Robert:

[chair hat on]
If the text changes are minor, the text can go through a 2nd WG LC on text changes.  It is wiser to do a WG LC on changes to avoid legal issues.
[chair hat off]

[author hat on]
It is important for John in his discussion with the IESG to have a clear understanding of the Encapsulation Extended community + the use cases.   I hope my lengthy message points to similar usage in SR Policy (old te-policy).

The current draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery text does not clearly state the following two points regarding client routes:


  1.  What NLRIs are supported for client routes

Section 3:
 The text gives an example of 1/128


Section 5: Procedure text states:
“The SD-WAN network's Client Route UPDATE message is the same as the L3 VPN (AFI= 1 or 2, SAFI = 128) or EVPN client route UDPATE message.”

What needs to be improved: This needs to be tightened to the exactly which AFI/SAFI are supported for the client functions.


  1.  What type of encapsulation in each type of port:

Section 5.2 (see below) indicates

  *   MPLS link – will need to use the MPLS label encoding
  *   IP-SEC tunnel with GRE encapsulation inside [VPN ID = SD-WAN VPN-ID]
  *   IP-SEC tunnel with network overlay [VXLAN, GENEVE, etc].

This information needs to be passed in the SDWAN-NLRI + TEA.

Sue



Text reference for encapsulation.
==============
5.2. SD-WAN VPN ID in Data Plane
For an SD-WAN edge node which can be reached by both MPLS and IPsec paths, the client packets reached by MPLS network will be encoded with the MPLS Labels based on the scheme specified by [RFC8277].

For GRE Encapsulation within an IPsec tunnel, the GRE key field can be used to carry the SD-WAN VPN ID. For network virtual overlay (VxLAN, GENEVE, etc.) encapsulation within the IPsec tunnel, the Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) field is used to carry the SD-WAN VPN ID.



From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 6:52 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Error in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery use of Encapsulation Extended Community

Hi, I think John's point is that use of Encapsulation Extended Community as defined should be removed. RFC9012 leaves Encapsulation Extended Community for backwards compatibility so in the case of thi
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2E0NDQ1MGIwYWUzMzA1MjhkN2Y2NTVhNjU4YzI4ZDliLzE3MDkwNzc5MjEuMDQ=#key=e7dc1f7d064030095025e29f21ff687e>  FAQ<https://www.godaddy.com/help/report-email-with-advanced-email-security-40813>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Hi,

I think John's point is that use of Encapsulation Extended Community as defined should be removed.

RFC9012 leaves Encapsulation Extended Community for backwards compatibility so in the case of this draft can be avoided/removed and we can signal encap using Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute.

If the references to use of Encapsulation Extended Community is removed I am not sure if this requires new LC as it does not introduce any new feature.

Thx,
R.



On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:35 AM Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
John,

See the answers below:

-----Original Message-----
From: John Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 5:10 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Error in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery use of Encapsulation Extended Community

Hi Linda,

What are the semantics of a Tunnel Encapsulation path attribute, with tunnel type = SD-WAN-Hybrid, and no sub-TLVs other than egress endpoint?

[Linda] There ARE sub-TLVs under the Tunnel Encapsulation Path Attribute, which specifies the detailed attributes associated with the IPsec tunnel for the SD-WAN Edge’s WAN Ports. I am trying to say that there are NO sub-TLVs under the client routes UPDATE (which has Encapsulation Extended Community)

draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20 describe how to use BGP,  stating There are two UPDATE2:
1) UPDATE 1 is for Client Route UPDATE (which follows the traditional BGP-based client routes)
2) UPDATE 2 for the Edges to advertise the WAN port information. In the UPDATE2, the Route prefix is the WAN port address.

draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-12 specifies the detailed BGP extension for UPDDATE2. The UPDATE 2 has Tunnel Encapsulation Path Attribute with a new NLRI for Underlay Tunnel Update and the sub-TLVs specified in the document.

Linda

—John

> On Feb 27, 2024, at 6:03 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> John  The  Encapsulation Extended Community is only in the client routes BGP UPDATE, which is the BGP-based VPN/EVPN client routes UPDATE message. There are no sub-TLVs added. Section 6's first paragraph states the Client Route UPDATE follows the BGP-based VPN/EVPN client route UPDATE message..  The sub-TLVs discussed in the draft are under the Tunnel Encapsulation Path attribute in a separate UPDATE (U2 in the document) which DOES NOT have Encapsulation Extended Community for SD-WAN edges to advertise the information about their WAN ports. Please see below for the details.
>  p.s. Are you referring to version-20?   Linda
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 2:42 PM
> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Error in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery use of
> Encapsulation Extended Community  Hi Authors, WG,  I just noticed
> draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-12 and was looking at its use of RFC 9012. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Encapsulation Extended Community can be used, and I thought you should be aware of it. TL;DR, you’re specifying the use of SD-WAN-Hybrid tunnel type in an Encapsulation Extended Community, but this isn’t allowed. Details follow.
>  [Linda] That is just an example for needing a different Tunnel Type
> in the Encapsulation Extended Community
>  - RFC 9012, Section 4.1 tells us that the only permissible use of the Encapsulation Extended Community is when there are *no sub-TLVs*, other than the Address Family sub-TLV (item 3 in the list of conditions).
> [Linda] That is our understanding as well. This document doesn’t specify additional sub-TLVs to be added to the BGP UPDATE with the Encapsulation Extended Community.
>  - In draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-12 Section 6.3 we see the definition of the IPsec-SA-ID Sub-TLV of the SD-WAN-Hybrid tunnel type. This seems pretty central to the purpose of the spec. So, the SD-WAN-Hybrid tunnel type does have sub-TLVs in addition to the Address Family, and therefore MUST NOT be used in an Encapsulation Extended Community.
> [Linda] All those sub-TLVs are NOT used with Encapsulation Extended Community. Those Sub-TLVs are under the Tunnel Encapsulation Path attribute in a separate UPDATE (U2 in the document) for SD-WAN edges to advertise the information about their WAN ports. There is no Encapsulation Extended Community included when an edge node advertises its WAN port information. Please see Section 5 for BGP Walk Through details.
>  - Also, in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-12 Section 5.1 we see that the client route update uses the Encapsulation Extended Community (emphasis added):
>  [Linda] The Client Route UPDATE can use the Extended Community to indicate that their associated tunnel information is advertised by separate UDPATE. The purpose is to reduce the size of the Clint Route UPDATE message size because the tunnel associated with IPsec has a lot of information to be exchanged. They don’t change at the same frequency as the Client Routes.
> ```
> 5.  Client Route UPDATE
>     The SD-WAN network's Client Route UPDATE message is the same as the
>    L3 VPN or EVPN client route UDPATE message.  The SD-WAN Client Route
>    UPDATE message uses the **Encapsulation Extended Community** and the
>    Color Extended Community to link with the SD-WAN Underlay UPDATE
>    Message.
> ```
>  - It’s clear from other parts of the spec that the tunnel type is SD-WAN-Hybrid, for example, this is both stated in Section 3.3, and then used in the example (same section).
> [Linda] The Client Route Update message is NOT using RFC9012. Here is to indicate that another type might be needed. As this is a BGP usage draft, with the intent to explain how to use BGP, with the justification to BGP extension later.  - But RFC 9012 §4.1 told us we can’t use a tunnel type with sub-TLVs as an Encapsulation Extended Community!
> [Linda] The Client Route Update message is NOT using RFC9012.
>  I think what you really must be trying to do is use the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute (only!) to carry the SD-WAN-Hybrid in the SD-WAN Underlay route, and then have the client routes making use of that tunnel recurse into the underlay route (including tunnel) as per RFC 9012 Section 8. Note that Section 8 does NOT require that the client route carry the Encapsulation Extended Community — the next hop address is both necessary and sufficient to effectuate the linkage to the underlay route.
> [Linda] You are correct. The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is used to carry the SD-WAN-Hybrid for SD-WAN edge nodes to advertise the WAN ports (i.e. the under route).
>    Thanks,
>  —John