Re: [Idr] Review comments on draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-11

[Abhishek Chakraborty <[e-mail]>]

Hello Kaliraj,

Few cosmetic review comments on the draft:
1.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-11#section-5.4.2.3

F.A. Type Code = 3 ==> This should be 2 as the load balance factor is a Path Constraint

2.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-11#section-5.4.3.3


  - Encap Type
          = 3, to signify SR MPLS SID Info. ==> This should be "SRv6 SID info"


Overall, the draft looks very interesting and promising, and the use cases that can be solved with this approach are well defined.

Thanks, and Regards,
Abhishek




Juniper Business Use Only

________________________________
From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2023 11:43
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Idr Digest, Vol 235, Issue 82

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Send Idr mailing list submissions to
        [e-mail]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CNkSfCIP4t6-GPvqd_sCIEPJ2kvV5XZqDSersf04t6VO39r_FGtibZDLXOHMOoxTFP8HNXq-nJejyH21wpA$
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [e-mail]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [e-mail]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Idr digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: WG adoption call -
      draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10 - (11/10/2023 to
      11/24/2023) (Kaliraj Vairavakkalai)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 19:42:58 +0000
From: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>
To: Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]>
Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call -
        draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10 - (11/10/2023 to
        11/24/2023)
Message-ID:
        <[e-mail]>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Igor, please see my responses inline KV2>

Thanks
Kaliraj


Juniper Business Use Only
From: Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:24 AM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>
Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call - draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10 - (11/10/2023 to 11/24/2023)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Kaliraj,

My responses are below ([IM2]).


??, 17 ????. 2023??. ? 13:32, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
Hi Igor,

Please find some responses inline. KV>

Thanks
Kaliraj


Juniper Business Use Only
From: Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 11:45 PM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call - draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10 - (11/10/2023 to 11/24/2023)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Kaliraj,

Thanks for your response! In general, I agree with the list above and personally find your work promising. I just want to clarify several things. Please, see my inline.

??, 16 ????. 2023??. ? 05:14, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
Hi Igor, thanks for your comments.

This MNH draft applies to single path carrying an ordered set of one or more nexthops.
[IM] That's about outgoing messages I believe. I asked about the sources of it. Let's say, we have two paths for the same destination: x.x.x.x/y {1;2;3} and x.x.x.x/y {5} from different peers (and with the different next-hops as well). A node selects the latter due to its shorter AS_PATH, would it be possible to propagate the route further with the MNH attribute and both next-hops?
    KV> Good question. The node may readvertise the best path with a MNH containing the nexthop (EP1) of best path as active leg, and nexthop (EP2) of inactive path as backup leg. E.g.,

        MNH-X:
          +NFI-X <Primary, Num-Nexthops=2>
                +FI-X <Action=Push, RelativePref=1>
                     -FA-U <Type=1, EP=EP1>
                +FI-Y <Action=Push, RelativePref=2>
                     -FA-X <Type=1, EP=EP2>

 [IM2] Ok, thank you, now I understand it better.

Yes Addpath advertises multiple paths along with their attributes, but only if they have unique nexthops. So as I see it, the real use of Addpath is also to advertise multiple nexthops. But Addpath does not specify any relationship/order in the nexthops sent, and uses high RIB-out/in scale, because of using all attributes.

Conceptually, if the sending BGP speaker is able to come up with ?what kind of multiple-nexthop forwarding? is needed at the receiving nodes, then that can be conveyed in a single route update in a more expressive manner, instead of carrying all paths to receiver and further consuming CPU in multipath computation at all receiving-nodes. MNH just provides that expressiveness on the wire. How the sending speaker arrives at the forwarding-info to be sent in MNH (ECMP, Ordered fallback, WECMP, etc) - there can be more than one ways to figure that out, based on different usecases - as we are discovering. This just opens up a BGP based standard API to the box?s BGP RIB.
[IM] Thanks for the additional clarification.

And about the point on carrying labels in unlabled families: nodes not supporting MNH will just ignore it. Only those that have configured an AF to use MNH will use it. So I think there is no surprise element to any old BGP speakers receiving the label/MNH. If a receiving node that understands MNH does not understand enough of the contents to safely use it, they don?t use it (?Attribute Discard? approach). But I agree, the error handling will evolve as the draft matures.
[IM] I'm worried about the approach when we define some new attributes and significantly change the very nature of an address family. Where does this road lead us? I consider an address family not only as an encoding container but also as some semantics behind it, and it looks like additional attributes can alter it in any possible way.
   KV> I get your concern. I consider an address family as having a core business logic. And these encoding enhancements should not alter that business logic. They should just help in achieving that business logic better.
   KV> IOW, encoding deficiencies should not come in the way of achieving the business logic better. I agree with you that the core business logic of an AF should not be diluted. But I also feel giving any AF a little more expressability
   KV> should not hurt its business logic.
[IM2] Well, we can already send prefixes for one AFI with next-hops from another. A more detailed text about the path resolution of unlabeled families with labeled next-hops would be helpful.

KV2> Since that is already existing functionality, documenting that elsewhere may be good. may be the LU-EPE draft, which makes use of that functionality?

Additionally, I'm curious about the process of withdrawing a label when a connected with it next-hop is alive it shouldn't be withdrawn.

KV2> I?m presuming this is a general question, not referring to any specific text in the draft?
KV2> In my view, the node?s liveness and label-advertisement are decoupled. A label could signify a service-endpoint at a node or the node itself.
KV2> So a ?label?s association with a BGP FEC? can be changed/withdrawn without the node actually going down.

KV2> Also, to set some baseline, stating my understanding: in BGP the (downstream allocated) label itself is not withdrawn by itself. It is not part of the key in NLRI. Only the FEC in NLRI (e.g. SAFI 128, SAFI 4) are withdrawn, and as a result
KV2> the association with the previously associated label is removed. IOW, the (downstream allocated) label advertised in the 8277 NLRI is just used in the nexthop at receiving node.
KV2> MNH carries the (downstream allocated) label in an attribute, which actually expresses this non-key aspect better.
KV2> Only a (upstream allocated) label advertised in AFI 16399 NLRI (MPLS Namespaces) can be explicitly withdrawn because in that case, it is part of the FEC/key in the NLRI.
I feel the flexibility (carrying labels in unlabled families) itself is beneficial. Even today we have usecases (LU-EPE, 6PE, 4PE) where we want to impose labels on unlabeled service routes by resolving over labeled families. And some of these usecases (6PE, 4PE) require redistribution between Internet-families and Labeled-AFs which is risky. Using MNH allows safe walled gardens with consistent service, transport AF-layers, avoiding such redistribtions. And, I agree that interaction/precedence of the label carried in MNH with the label carried in other places on the route need to be specified.
[IM] At this very moment, I can't see where this flexibility is justified. It more looks like the approach to get rid of the LU.
KV> I feel having transport layer families (like LU) and resolving service families over them has the advantage of indirection and BGP PIC.
KV> So I think we cannot get rid of LU as a transport-family, unless the indirection is provided by some other means.
     KV> Its core business logic is to carry transport end-points.
     KV> Having flexibility to carry label on service-routes does not mean we need to eliminate a transport layer family. it just allows additional expressability for AFs at each layer.
[IM2] I agree with everything about the LU and for exactly this reason I want to better understand when the LU doesn't suit and we should allocate extra labels for service routes.

KV2> Firstly, one thing I wanted to clarify: just because of carrying a label, the business logic of an AF is not altered. E.g. both SAFI 128 and SAFI 4 carry labels. But still they have distinct business logic,
KV2> the former is a service-family and latter is a transport-family. LU hasn?t ceased to exist, because SAFI-128 can carry a label. It is used in conjunction with SAFI-4. I expect the same thing to happen with SAFI 1 and SAFI 4.

KV2> I think the right question to ask is: in a certain usecase (e.g. 6PE, LU-EPE) whether we are carrying a service-label or a transport-label. It is possible that we have been carrying a service-label in a transport-family,
KV2> just because there was no other way to carry it in service family so far. The explcit-null in 6PE is actually a service-label, it binds to the service-fec(IPv6). We just impose it by virtue of recursive resolution over a transport-family.
KV2> That is the reason it forces us to use two loopbacks (a workaround) when we want to do nexthop-self and EPE-style 6PE simultaneously.

KV2> Further, taking the e.g. of EPE, there are circumstances, where the A/A or A/B relationship of two EPE peers is not expressable using a single LU-label, without making an assumption that the two peers give us exactly the same
KV2> service-family routes at all times. We know this may not be true unless the two bgp-peer-session are on parallel-links between two nodes without any bgp policies, and even then momentarily they can get out of sync.
KV2> I think such assumptions arise because the EPE label is actually a service-label. But we are imposing it by virtue of recursive resolution over a transport family.
KV2> IF we were able to specify EPE-label in SAFI 1, then different SAFI 1 routes can carry different EPE-labels, based on ?per-nexthop? label allocation mode, allocating an EPE label per ECMP/FRR peer nexthop-set
KV2> that the service-route is pointing to. This model allows for a ?Low-fib ASBR?, just another usecase.
KV2> So I think it is beneficial to be able to express service-labels for service-families (SAFI 1 also) without depending on a transport family.
I also don't think that 4PE/6PE require any redistribution between AFIs, no one requires us to disseminate service routes as labeled ones, it is enough only for their next-hops. In other words, all the described cases are already solved by the LU.
KV> I suppose you are mentioning the LU-EPE (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-15__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CNkSfCIP4t6-GPvqd_sCIEPJ2kvV5XZqDSersf04t6VO39r_FGtibZDLXOHMOoxTFP8HNXq-nJejMBu5rVA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-15__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AqPF6zorBb_vXUUBej0ZWFFpJYB9l8Je5Us7dC0rR9HvOMKNL6c4pudWp9ePqJ0bIlZokbBy7Tueagxo7P__$>) way (nexthop-unchanged on SAFI 1 routes) of doing 6PE? I agree in that way, redistribution between AFs is not needed.
KV> If the same approach needs to be used with nexthop-self on SAFI 1 routes, it may need multiple loopbacks, one to advertise explicit-null, and another to advertise implicit-null
 [IM2] Yes, the idea behind my previous comment can be expressed in this draft (although, I don't like the way it's written).
KV2> I?d appreciate any input to make the LU-EPE draft better. We need to revive it and get it adopted as-well. Since it is deployed technology but the draft is still an individual draft.

Yes, to preserve a NH in this case we may need an additional loopback. I'm not sure that to overcome this "issue" we need to invent something really new. Maybe there should be more convincing use cases. :)
KV> But in mechanisms described in rfc4798 or in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mishra-idr-v4-islands-v6-core-4pe-06.html*section-7.4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CNkSfCIP4t6-GPvqd_sCIEPJ2kvV5XZqDSersf04t6VO39r_FGtibZDLXOHMOoxTFP8HNXq-nJej1tDRuhA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mishra-idr-v4-islands-v6-core-4pe-06.html*section-7.4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AqPF6zorBb_vXUUBej0ZWFFpJYB9l8Je5Us7dC0rR9HvOMKNL6c4pudWp9ePqJ0bIlZokbBy7TueakmVBZIe$>, AFI redistribution is needed. SAFI 1  routes are redistributed into SAFI 4.
[IM2] RFC4798 requires us to send service routes via SAFI4, yes. But as we agreed above, it is not necessary, there are options. Moreover, vendors already give us all we need (Juniper is also).
Speaking about the latter document, Section 7 explicitly states that we actually can send service routes without any labels attached to them. I've spent much time discussing it with the authors because the original versions required the sending of service routes as labeled ones.

KV2> Yes that?s an improvement. Thanks for that. But specifying too many options without the actual tradeoffs clearly specified may also confuse users. Based on our experiences,
KV2> if we can atleast recommend ?not redistributing between SAFIs?, that would be helpful. Especially because rfc4798 has been in widespread use so far.
KV> This dilutes the business logic of these AFs. Ability to carrying explicit-null in SAFI 1 using MNH helps with these scenarios, by not diluting SAFI 4 business logic to carry service routes. Thanks.
[IM2] So, having the alternative (the LU), I cannot agree with you on this part in the way, that we have to create something new to overcome the described problem.

KV2> Thanks for all your input. Just wanted to state my viewpoint above, on why having a way to carry service-label in the SAFI 1 service-family also can be beneficial, just like we carry label in SAFI 128 servce-family.

Thanks
Kaliraj







Juniper Business Use Only
From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 11:45 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call - draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10 - (11/10/2023 to 11/24/2023)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hello folks,

I have some questions. First, it is unclear whether this draft applies to several paths and their next-hop addresses or a single path and its potential next-hop addresses. The text, especially in Section 3, refers to the Add-Paths mechanism as today's alternative, but Add-Paths allows us to propagate several paths without losing any attributes.
Second, the draft specifies that for unlabeled families there can be a labeled next-hop attached via the new attribute. I think that moment should be carefully considered by the WG. From my side, it is strange to advertise any labels to a receiver that does not expect that via families that are not about that.

Thank you!

??, 10 ????. 2023??. ? 13:19, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
This begins a WG adoption call for draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-10.txt.

Each author should reply to this message with a message
that indicates whether you know of any IPR on this topic.

During your consideration,  please consider:


a.       Are there any errors or problems with this specification?

b.      Will this specification aid operational networks?

Cheerily, Sue Hares
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CNkSfCIP4t6-GPvqd_sCIEPJ2kvV5XZqDSersf04t6VO39r_FGtibZDLXOHMOoxTFP8HNXq-nJejyH21wpA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EqDZ5Xgy6P1r1DqauJ3-G_fdixf-M42OMPDJ41fgj9c3Cgs3EuxCPdUgGTckEw2m2hSbX7P6jwCMDhXb1FPb$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/attachments/20231124/43009d80/attachment.htm__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CNkSfCIP4t6-GPvqd_sCIEPJ2kvV5XZqDSersf04t6VO39r_FGtibZDLXOHMOoxTFP8HNXq-nJej-DZtfeU$ >

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CNkSfCIP4t6-GPvqd_sCIEPJ2kvV5XZqDSersf04t6VO39r_FGtibZDLXOHMOoxTFP8HNXq-nJejyH21wpA$


------------------------------

End of Idr Digest, Vol 235, Issue 82
************************************