Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 13 December 2019 12:30 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 2A2EC120289; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:30:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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, 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 header.b=kqzDOl3s; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=UB8qRdRy
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 OdwYDMyWfMbx; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC60212011E; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:30:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12334; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1576240227; x=1577449827; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=F3DS8PZg5DdzmiKSkL/EE4OoO+B5larysORV8vKycp8=; b=kqzDOl3snzNz9YR+yG5QA+X7MzouebdrzXRiWFSzDbUYsfNGa8zLWgiE ejReh3+/Pw75JILoWdxoIcexUynEXAIzrzZiC9TSZN+O5mD58/KUl0IR9 APSf0WvT/Lijpchn7jV9wcVn6FH1FH6OEBZ1Ag+5enH0ZxPqecxapcJJt U=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ak4PuLRLIk4IHUSqbxdmcpTVXNCE6p7X5OBIU4Z?= =?us-ascii?q?M7irVIN76u5InmIFeCuKd2lFGcW4Ld5roEkOfQv636EU04qZea+DFKa5lQT1?= =?us-ascii?q?kAgMQSkRYnBZuMAkD2BPXrdCc9Ws9FUQwt8g=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A6AAAqhPNd/40NJK1lGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBEQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBgW0BAQEBAQELAQGBSVAFbFggBAsqhAO?= =?us-ascii?q?DRgOLC4I6JZgGglIDVAkBAQEMAQEYCwoCAQGEQAIXgXgkNwYOAgMNAQEEAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgEFBG2FNwxCFgGFBQEBAQEDAQEQEREMAQEsCwELBAIBCBEEAQEBAgIjAwI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAiULFAEICAIEAQ0FIoMAAYJGAy4BAgyiAAKBOIhhdYEygn4BAQVGhD8Yghc?= =?us-ascii?q?DBoEOKAGMFxqCAIEQAScMFIJMPoJkAQEDgUABAR4XD4JqMoIskC6FeJhNCoI?= =?us-ascii?q?whySOVRuCQow3i0iOS4hMjgqDZwIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaCOBWHAVOyoBgkFQERS?= =?us-ascii?q?NEgwFEoNQhRSDGYImdIEoiAGEQIIyAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,309,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="676750407"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 13 Dec 2019 12:30:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBDCU7OH017481 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:30:07 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:30:07 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:30:06 -0500
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:30:06 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=jo2LDYQfyq3g4iA3rrPfjb8Bj1VFgDaiOzDS3rXiuHxHal+o0HHOsDrd19xkNh6t/9oRBdhW+lly593Ub+vsLK3zFF05zYdhNtTLapBHMwvJsarMiwEHokI8/89wXtf+xCEakDz2/1CEnjdGiPVYrKOnSDWsK6vInfSZWa/Q5CLZ/BbULUm/0ylXOR/q0t4TVGm5UpK5IeTcfo+J1mOE8rcj5xql/QiryuphvrbngTLnMGIL7m0nDH70owDpM46cc9RfDcqFK0rNs4DZATmdoCMjFEbH/VYbLbBDLQfpJbHA9aAY3mJM1LIVEB8+YQM4ukV8VFJRPZAB1N1BHL7pfQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=F3DS8PZg5DdzmiKSkL/EE4OoO+B5larysORV8vKycp8=; b=ewSQEDK0Vch1mCDHvhv6VIJESJEPof/N7kN9qe34VtZp+1ORk+3D+4znCw5fl/LFdAN5AjTIq6VG9vaaQMh0BsQe0AWeHVUb4Yr1MN7CQ1mMKIfshQAxWD9CGpvLOLDnbkoArzdyQ9RHOX+FlrP6ovh8F5DLwzCYsImn80HuofIBIR2Poh2SqBQ635XdOA9E9sSfrEhzd2ZTVweTrdLWtqbSHUV26iXqUFKvMC841jSTJaIGHQMUiPd3tIHR0YHwxC+lkfnOBdWEBfxfW7d+GHcx6Hr9RxLjzLFAFVU/PRwIjenBIzqrkIczE41kxpBULj8UKY+sdRNPKu5tDSpmYw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=F3DS8PZg5DdzmiKSkL/EE4OoO+B5larysORV8vKycp8=; b=UB8qRdRyV34YWItiwrXW2HcRZKIPdYGe0ah1UtrlqoZtH7L5mwR09z9iMPmuqZkGPTd4zQAg5stSfbJYHw9RZKTTb75jQgziIrgg8tcmoUG6SGRYRmoJ4jMFz5C+5cyefzYo71gcSEBuBWFI9/6qhXktxBcTSlWhp61y22kRUw0=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.14) by MN2PR11MB4159.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.179.150.225) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2516.13; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:30:05 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f065:2931:17b6:7b5d]) by MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f065:2931:17b6:7b5d%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2538.017; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:30:04 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
Thread-Index: AdVTYqP7HEGobTyKRLSJ6VQT3MRf2gI66BIAAA6vHoAQXeODgATEa24AABTqVAAACE8ZgA==
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:30:04 +0000
Message-ID: <78B89452-BCF8-4941-B9BB-352C4477AF2C@cisco.com>
References: <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C8F2E20@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20190826203850.GH24671@pfrc.org> <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C90DB78@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20191118110851.GK21134@pfrc.org> <38672C45-991E-42F6-8D2A-E001C7F0D75A@cisco.com> <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348CA1D40F@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348CA1D40F@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1006::8f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a0c16dc3-0c49-4406-2f0d-08d77fc82e9b
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4159:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB41599636B20C7B3499AB68EEC2540@MN2PR11MB4159.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0250B840C1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(346002)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(8936002)(2906002)(478600001)(6486002)(8676002)(54906003)(81166006)(81156014)(86362001)(71200400001)(110136005)(64756008)(316002)(2616005)(66556008)(66574012)(33656002)(66946007)(53546011)(6512007)(66446008)(186003)(5660300002)(36756003)(966005)(76116006)(66476007)(4326008)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4159; H:MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C018935E779E3944B689B195F86C4672@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a0c16dc3-0c49-4406-2f0d-08d77fc82e9b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Dec 2019 12:30:04.5235 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: GWxM32eyWvM3hLzKjmcXW28XaRdxGbT+w2jEJwp+1sGkO6i0bbMS57MxqJNo0Wu1
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4159
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.20, xch-aln-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mBjb59gM-0M8pmyTwU_KBM14RJ0>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
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, 13 Dec 2019 12:30:30 -0000

Hi Wanghaibo,
The MPLS VPN support (RFC 4364), is confined to the default networking instance. However, you could additional use BGP as a PE-CE protocol in the non-default network instance (aka, VRFs). 
Thanks,
Acee

On 12/12/19, 10:37 PM, "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> wrote:

    Hi, Acee
    
    RFC 4364 does not describe the use of multiple instances on the public network, but now multiple vendors have supported such functions, 
    
    Eg
    
    router bgp 100 instance a1       // one bgp instance here
     bgp router-id 12.12.12.12
     address-family vpnv4 unicast
     !
     neighbor 121.1.1.1
      remote-as 100
      address-family vpnv4 unicast   //and its vpnv4 unicast neighbor, support service for vrf-a1
      !
     !
     vrf vrf-a1                    //vrf-a1 here 
      rd auto
      address-family ipv4 unicast
       redistribute static
      !
     !
    !
    router bgp 200 instance a2      // another bgp instance here
     bgp router-id 13.1.1.1
     address-family vpnv4 unicast
     !
     address-family ipv6 unicast
     !
     address-family l2vpn evpn
     !
     neighbor 122.1.1.1
      remote-as 100
      address-family vpnv4 unicast  //and its vpnv4 unicast neighbor,support service for a3
      !
      address-family l2vpn evpn
      !
     !
     vrf a3                     //a3 here
      rd 13.1.1.1:2
      address-family ipv4 unicast
      !
     !
    
    Regards, 
    Haibo
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
    Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 6:33 AM
    To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>rg>; Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
    Cc: idr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org; draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org
    Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
    
    I don’t think there is any ambiguity here. For BGP VPN configuration (e.g., RFC 4364), the BGP configuration will augment control-plane-protocols in the default network instance. References to other network instances, should use a leafref with an xpath pointing to the network-instance name.  A BGP instance may also be configured as a control-plane protocol within a network-instance - either as a PE-CE protocol or simply for routing within the routing domain corresponding to the network-instance. 
    Thanks,
    Acee
    
    On 11/18/19, 6:06 AM, "Idr on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" <idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
    
        Per IDR mic comment, copying once again to IDR since I mis-laid the mail.
        My apologies, Haibo.
        
        If I understand your comment correctly, your question is "how do you bind a
        given routing instance (e.g. VRF) to a given BGP session?"
        
        If so, I think you are correct.  We do not have a clean way to specify this.
        It may also have impacts on the network instancing model in general.  Let us
        raise the issue with netmod working group.
        
        -- Jeff
        
        On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:39:17AM +0000, Wanghaibo (Rainsword) wrote:
        > Hi Jeff,
        >  
        >  Thanks for your reply. 
        > 
        >  I have read this example. But it doesn't solve my doubts. 
        >  If I have two public bgp instance like this:
        >     "ietf-routing:routing": {
        >        "router-id": "192.0.2.1",
        >        "control-plane-protocols": {
        >          "control-plane-protocol": [
        >            {
        >              "type": "ietf-routing:bgp",
        >              "name": "bgp0",
        >              "description": 
        >                "Bgp for CustomerA.",
        >              "bgp": {
        > 			 "neighbors":{
        > 			  "neighbor":[
        > 			    {
        > 				 "remote-address":"192.0.2.1",
        >                    "peer-as":"64497"
        > 	               "afi-safis":{
        >                      "afi-safi":[
        >                        "afi-safi-name":"bt:l3vpn-ipv4-unicast"
        >                       ]
        >                     }
        > 			    }	
        > 			   ]
        > 		      }
        >               }
        >            }
        > 		 ]
        >          "control-plane-protocol": [
        >            {
        >              "type": "ietf-routing:bgp",
        >              "name": "bgp1",
        >              "description":
        >                "Static routing is used for the internal network.",
        >              "bgp": {
        > 			 "neighbors":{
        > 			  "neighbor":[
        > 			    {
        > 				 "remote-address":"192.0.3.1",
        >                    "peer-as":"64497"
        > 	               "afi-safis":{
        >                      "afi-safi":[
        >                        "afi-safi-name":"bt:l2vpn-evpn"
        >                       ]
        >                     }
        > 			    }	
        > 			   ]
        > 		      }
        >               } 
        >             }
        >          ]
        >        },
        >    
        >  And I have two vrf instance like :
        >     "ietf-network-instance:network-instances": {
        >       "network-instance": [
        >         {
        >           "name": "vrf-old",
        >            ...
        >         }
        >        ]
        >       }
        >     "ietf-network-instance:network-instances": {
        >       "network-instance": [
        >         {
        >           "name": "vrf-new",
        >            ...
        >         }
        >        ]
        >       }
        > 
        >   I want to specify the vrf-old use bgp0 to advertise routes using l3vpn-ipv4-unicast, and use bgp1 for vrf-new to advertise routes using l2vpn-evpn with type5.
        >   So how can I do this ?
        > 
        > Regards,
        > Haibo
        > 
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] 
        > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:39 AM
        > To: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
        > Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org
        > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
        > 
        > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:32:01PM +0000, Wanghaibo (Rainsword) wrote:
        > > Hi authors,
        > > 
        > > I have some question about the bgp model.
        > > 
        > > In current model, the bgp module will augment to routing,
        > >      /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
        > >                /rt:control-plane-protocol:
        > > And the routing will schema mount to network-instance.
        > > 
        > > In this model, how to realize the multiple bgp public instance, like that
        > > 
        > > bgp instance 1 as-number 100
        > >   neighbor 2.2.2.2
        > > address-family vpn-ipv4
        > >   vrf vpn1
        > > neighbor 11.1.1.1
        > >   address-family ipv4
        > > 
        > > bgp instance 2 as-number 200
        > >   neighbor 3.3.3.3
        > > address-family vpn-ipv4
        > >   vrf vpn2
        > > neighbor 12.1.1.1
        > >   address-family ipv4
        > > 
        > > Bgp doesn't like ospf or isis, the vrf's bgp will associate to public bgp's special address family.
        > > I'm not find how to describe the associate in current model
        > 
        > The bgp model uses NMDA:
        >   augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
        >         + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
        > 
        > You may find this example from RFC 8349 helpful:
        > 
        > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8349
        > 
        > : Appendix D.  Data Tree Example
        > : [...]
        > : 
        > : 
        > :      "ietf-routing:routing": {
        > :        "router-id": "192.0.2.1",
        > :        "control-plane-protocols": {
        > :          "control-plane-protocol": [
        > :            {
        > :              "type": "ietf-routing:static",
        > :              "name": "st0",
        > :              "description":
        > :                "Static routing is used for the internal network.",
        > :  
        > 
        > The definition of control plane protocols permits multi-instancing via name:
        > 
        > :        container control-plane-protocols {
        > :          description
        > :            "Support for control-plane protocol instances.";
        > :          list control-plane-protocol {
        > :            key "type name";
        > :            description
        > 
        > -- Jeff
        
        _______________________________________________
        Idr mailing list
        Idr@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr