Re: [Idr] [Responses for the comments during the IETF108] New Version Notification for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-01.txt

Gyan Mishra <> Thu, 06 August 2020 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75BF3A10BE for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LUkeRUhpPlYo for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A1D3A10BA for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p8so16439855vsm.12 for <>; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 03:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1Cba+uIFwdzwtBQS/eCfmP8ZsCe5CEXkprw6ehlPjy4=; b=MVQBbty8CkHsdCO+rnhaXPvkSq3CHwvBtWvfMKRH5H8Qz272FKhJtrnlsGLtyNFrKo 9xb0RJA/cCVaTVrjBgniAb31qMVblCCxk25ATk7elGTeUXS1t+5pEClAEq02blLyPZmE iLBKfxBgjzk+2FZBFH6sv7xedAkKE+e5mIoUEhFJBBzNhw2QZs/LL9XRAMz3NgiQbC4t rIX7THwO3VRBZoYHsW2JFf+GSbjPfH/3bq1xeqbNOjZVL6ugvpzl2I95DQNv/Pseco7n NUW5J6HUMJypbjMpQAXus+NH4xsZr+jfmarhmUSRWZcQaiIws6dPtbh0e2M3h21yc1Qf ZqmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1Cba+uIFwdzwtBQS/eCfmP8ZsCe5CEXkprw6ehlPjy4=; b=V91tQh7RmdTYLV1G0AmStGLT8ZFzEWCOmOGC57rux6B9HAsToJ0Rs6jXXnhYsLR+EE E3ZuwRafS4S7GiuRraoFuhAMxViW+L+ESxorkLMuG5EZw5aj1/j5N2/24HY9nFT76pY6 jEj+3LSEv0y6eBDbbHZBcjU5C4PGjdx4IDyQuXudkDjr/r6KUWlwO+QwSWrq6Llbj4Wp L46OnO2hMH/6AndZdegL3lxG6iQ1ErQ6t9+u5qW9Mi6MksP8okylW7ULl5BEQIafmOxU 3l+RMnaJgEERDOj/ZYjanRRdi0GU9DFVbnuqTfWdmKttrL9Ej2ZUKfWfN63ebvSQzWLL j69A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531NRVq9lTFkDvXkUKIIOItXOIlz2w6X1BatozCjRBnMz4yuvH0r kss69KV6RiCyXSm1jhtWrjduaOwat9zmeSNqri0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy3hoMjLwBPMJoYtX34gwF6XrPAxd7lsC26k/wMaJhzoyT6+EgujKe9hJ1sKgHT87CFHVKId7/ARlCUUIPOsFE=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:fbd1:: with SMTP id o17mr5227378vsr.19.1596708160806; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 03:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 06:02:30 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
Cc: Aijun Wang <>, Keyur Patel <>, idr <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc253f05ac329612"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Responses for the comments during the IETF108] New Version Notification for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:02:46 -0000

Hi Robert

I am in agreement as you stated that most service providers from my
experience use the per VRF prefix limit to protect resources.  Problem
solved as you said 20+ years ago.

That is a general rule of thumb for any service providers to perform due
diligence on their PE memory resource carving per VRF and set it
appropriately based on platform and total number of VRFs to account for.

Problem solved on the SP end.

On the customer end, they can also use the maximum prefix peer command as
well to prevent flood of routes in case of unwanted advertisements from
unintentional VRF leaking by providers.

Kind Regards


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 5:49 AM Robert Raszuk <> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
> Thank you for your comments - all very valid observations.
> Just to perhaps clarify one thing ... Problem authors are attempting to
> address - the way I understand it - is that given resource may be suffering
> from actually legitimate VPN routes hence to use RTC indeed a lot of
> additional RTs would have to be applied.
> But I do not understand why authors fail to recognize that solution for
> their problem has been invented and implemented over 20 years ago already.
> The solution is to control on a per *ingress* VRF basis number of VPN
> routes customer is authorized to inject into his VPN with eBGP PE-CE prefix
> limit.
> Most SPs offering L3VPNs use prefix limit successfully to protect their
> shared resources for vast majority of customers and deployments. For VPN
> customers with unpredictable amount of routing CSC model should be used
> instead.
> By all means filtering and dropping accepted into SP network VPN route
> should not take place.
> Thx,
> R.
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:41 AM Gyan Mishra <> wrote:
>> Hi Aijun
>> I agree with Robert that you cannot filter by RD or you would drop all
>> the routes and filtering must be done by RT.  Also the issue with RT ORF
>> filter is as Robert mentioned that you may have the same prefix with two
>> different RTs which is common unique by RD and so the ORF would drop the
>> prefixes.
>> I am not sure I understand what problem you are trying to solve that is
>> not already solved by RTC membership so that only RTs imported by the PE
>> are what is advertised by the RR.  That is most effective way of cutting
>> down the RT flooding that occurs in the RR to PE advertisement.  RT
>> filtering is enabled by Default on all PEs and only if the RT is imported
>> on the PE are the RTs accepted into the vpn rib. That works pretty well in
>> cutting down RT advertisements by the RR.
>> As Robert mentioned each VRF has a maximum prefix which is defined on the
>> PE RIBs per VRF and in general on most current or even hardware within the
>> last 10 years is a minimum 1M prefixes per VRF is pretty standard with most
>> vendors and platforms.  The vpn rib limit is much much higher on the higher
>> end platforms.
>> You draft talks about inter-as issues solved with RT-ORF.  So when PE-PE
>> inter-as option B by default all RTs are dropped due to default RT
>> filtering and only RTs that are accepted are those RTS that are explicitly
>> being imported on the PE ASBR.  There is an option for retain route-target
>> all that disabled the default RT filtering so that all VPN routes can be
>> accepted on the inter-as option B link.  However a RT filter can still be
>> applied to the retian-route-target all so that only pertinent RTs are
>> accepted inter domain.  That seems to work pretty well.
>> As far as inter-as option C, the PE-PE ASBRs do not maintain the VPN
>> RIB.  BGP LU is enabled on the inter-as link for end to end LSP by
>> importing the loopback between ASs for the end to end LSPto be built.   The
>> RRs between the SPs have eBGP VPN IPv4 VPN IPV6 peer with next hop
>> unchanged so the data plane gets built between the PEs.  The RR by default
>> does not have RT filtering enabled by default as does the PE, so is able to
>> reflect all the vpn routes learned to all PEs within each AS.  In the
>> inter-as scenario as well RTC works very well with the RT membership to cut
>> down on RR to PE vpn route advertisements.
>> Kind Regards
>> Gyan
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:49 PM Aijun Wang <>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi, Robert:
>>> Aijun Wang
>>> China Telecom
>>> On Aug 6, 2020, at 00:14, Robert Raszuk <> wrote:
>>> [WAJ] The VPN routes imported in these VRFs can’t use the same RD, or
>>>> else, the VPN prefixes in different VRFs will collision on RR.
>>> Nothing will "collide" on RRs.
>>> NLRI = RD+Prefix  not just the RD.
>>> [WAJ] The prefix part can be overlap in different VRF. If the RD is
>>> same, RD+Prefix will also be overlap.
>>> We must make sure different VRF use different RD to make the VPN
>>> prefixes unique within the domain.
>>> So you may have completely different prefixes sourced by the same VRF
>>> going to completely different VRFs on same or different PEs.
>>> [WAJ] This situation is for extraVPN communication, and should be
>>> designed carefully to avoid the address collision..
>>> If the address space in different VRF need to be considered in such
>>> manner, putting them in one VRF may be more straightforward.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> R.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idr mailing list
>> --
>> <>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>> <,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>*Silver
>> Spring, MD
>> <,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> --


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD