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

[Enke Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Brian:

The route sourced by the "network" command has the same ordering issue as
the route sourced by the "redistribute" command.

Thanks.   -- Enke

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 1:42 PM Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> 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=snEqNB2zn3PvbOz6evLTF_RY0Y4hzTk6um8tPviaKC0&s=8-pP2p8g4JLMvXje26e9nDe3D3DL9meBfLpDGDkyfvk&e=>
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.verizon.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=snEqNB2zn3PvbOz6evLTF_RY0Y4hzTk6um8tPviaKC0&s=_ULOmZGbd9QRxwUuthq4UtFMoMWiPDLHMxcRhJYAlk0&e=>
>>>
>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>
>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>
>>> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> 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=snEqNB2zn3PvbOz6evLTF_RY0Y4hzTk6um8tPviaKC0&s=8-pP2p8g4JLMvXje26e9nDe3D3DL9meBfLpDGDkyfvk&e=>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwICAg&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=snEqNB2zn3PvbOz6evLTF_RY0Y4hzTk6um8tPviaKC0&s=8-pP2p8g4JLMvXje26e9nDe3D3DL9meBfLpDGDkyfvk&e=
>