[Idr] Comments about BGP UPDATE for SDWAN Edge Discovery
"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Tue, 07 July 2020 12:22 UTC
Return-Path: <rainsword.wang@huawei.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 B924D3A0C18; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WOgtRpXCt53S; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 045153A0C10; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B566F6CE9CAD76EC3EB4; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:22:24 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:22:24 +0100
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 20:22:21 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 20:22:21 +0800
From: "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
To: "draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery@ietf.org" <draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery@ietf.org>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments about BGP UPDATE for SDWAN Edge Discovery
Thread-Index: AdZUK2fp0D6YN040S9Sxf/+BrzBFnQ==
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 12:22:21 +0000
Message-ID: <80c3fce20c5e406286fe2e2e10507906@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.202.142]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_80c3fce20c5e406286fe2e2e10507906huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/s5fekorB8x9bWoxdjtsEhMoLH3M>
Subject: [Idr] Comments about BGP UPDATE for SDWAN Edge Discovery
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: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 12:22:28 -0000
Hi authors,
3.2. Basic Schemes
BGP UPDATE from C-PE2 for the attached client routes is like:
Extended community: RT for SDWAN Instance 1
Prefix: 10.1.1.x; 20.1.1.x
NH: C-PE 2
Tunnel Encap Attr [AFI/SAFI = 1/1)
MPLS-in-GRE [tunnel type=11]
Sub-TLV for MPLS-in-GRE [Section 3.2.6<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-00#section-3.2.6> of Tunnel-encap]
IPSec SA for 192.0.0.1 [tunnel type=4]
Tunnel-End-Point Sub-TLV [Section 3.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-00#section-3.1> of Tunnel-encap]
IPsec SA sub-TLV [See the Section 5<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-00#section-5>]
Tunnel Encap Attr [AFI/SAFI = 1/1)
IPSec SA for 170.0.0.1
Tunnel-End-Point Sub-TLV /*the address*/
IPsec SA sub-TLV
// Here one client route contained several Tunnel-Encap Attribute, but for BGP Updates, any attribute should not appears more than once
// Another question. Why we use this attrbute to associate client routes with SD-WAN routes? Perhaps we may use some simple info like color extend-community (like sr-policy)
Regards
Haibo
- [Idr] Comments about BGP UPDATE for SDWAN Edge Di… Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
- Re: [Idr] Comments about BGP UPDATE for SDWAN Edg… Linda Dunbar