Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains
Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 23 March 2022 18:02 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 336973A08AB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-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 Hp2eR2CDYKwC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 499AC3A08A9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.114.225;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Kaliraj Vairavakkalai' <kaliraj=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, bruno.decraene@orange.com, idr@ietf.org
References: <10630_1647971106_623A0B22_10630_297_1_e1284ad83ee8491997b4567d7c5d0631@orange.com> <SJ0PR05MB8632992AAB38550BE45F2CAEA2189@SJ0PR05MB8632.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR05MB8632992AAB38550BE45F2CAEA2189@SJ0PR05MB8632.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:02:31 -0400
Message-ID: <00f501d83ee0$2ebdb290$8c3917b0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F6_01D83EBE.A7B0CD80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIlgBZiz1bDN6sPVZSuYKtrbkfplAL7uwbOrBrewIA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uapKFrZiFuxTT-qF9-PGFny9eVc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains
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: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:02:49 -0000
Kaliraj: You have two communities for (Peer1, C2), LCM(C1). But C1 becomes the Effective color in both cases. As you can see, Multipath/Protection can no longer be computed on the BGP NLRI prefix (Peer1, Cx). It needs to be computed based on (Peer1, Effective-color C1). When you are merging the two paths due LCM, explain why the algorithm is not merging the multipath protection based on LCM? Where am I lost? After I've grasp this small point, I'll go on to the transport questions. Sue From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kaliraj Vairavakkalai Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:11 PM To: bruno.decraene@orange.com; idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Hi Bruno, Please consider the following topology. Two parallel Cores Domain2, Domain3. Domain1 having ingress node PE1. EBGP peer Peer1 multihomed to two core domains as shown below. Traffic direction is PE1->Peer1. In each domain left side is ingress, right side is egress. Usecase is: EPE forwarding towards Peer1. Domain2, Domain3 egress ASBRs originate Peer1/32 route in the Transport-family (CAR for this discussion). Similar to how we do with BGP-LU today (BGP-LU EPE1). Color C1 +----------------+ | Core Domain2 | /+----------------+\ +--------------------+/ \+--------+ | Ingress Domain1 | | Peer1 | PE1 | +--------+ +--------------------+\ / Color C1 \+-- --------------+/ | Core Domain3 | +-----------------+ Color C2 Domain1, Domain2 use color C1 value to indicate a certain Transport-class (eg. 'high-bandwidth'). Domain3 uses C2 for same. Now, the ingress ASBRs in Domain3 will use LCM(Color=C2) in (Peer1, C2) advertisement towards Domain1, such that Domain1 will remap to LCM(C1). So Domain1 egress ASBR will have the following routes in the BGP-RIB for CAR family: (Peer1, C1) (Peer1, C2), LCM(C1). As you can see, Multipath/Protection can no longer be computed on the BGP NLRI prefix (Peer1, Cx). It needs to be computed based on (Peer1, Effective-color C1). This is what I was trying to point out. Further, Ingress PE1 will have the same information at transport-layer. And when resolving a Service-route received with Nexthop Peer1, Color:0:C1, it cannot use just the BGP-NLRI prefix (Peer1, C1) as the resolving route. Doing so will miss the Multipath/Protection. It will need to resolve over the (Peer1, Effective color C1). So that the service prefix gets Multipath/Protection towards the two domains Domain2, Domain3. Similar usecase can be constructed for Anycast EP in Domain2, Domain3 also. So, though one may argue that EPE and Anycast Endpoints are not the common-case, I strongly believe such deployment scenarios should be supported. Thanks to Ben for bringing up EPE as a use-case customers are interested in. What we think of as corner case or may not happen - will certainly happen in the field. Nature has its way! Murphys Law!. :) Thanks Kaliraj 1 BGP-LU EPE: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-14 From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of bruno.decraene@orange.com <bruno.decraene@orange.com> Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 10:45 AM To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org> Subject: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi BGP CT authors, As the subject is a bit vast, I'd like to better understand your operational concern with multiple colors domains. At your convenience, I think that three texts could be used to support our discussion 1. Please feel free to explain the issue your seeing with you own text. 2. This 1 page is probably a good start https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-03#section-2.8 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc -bess-bgp-car-03*section-2.8__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VQI-5zbHY7CE6clhUhOhP9Z_PljSz _MeeS11L5-pq_RckcjiDJdGhd0N2atrcsQQ$> 3. I've tried to describe the whole route journey in the below text using an example from a requirement document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statem ent#section-1.2.9 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc -bess-bgp-car-problem-statement*section-1.2.9__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VQI-5zbHY7CE 6clhUhOhP9Z_PljSz_MeeS11L5-pq_RckcjiDJdGhd0N2ZKQ6JLD$> and you can raise the issue when you see it. So below is option 3 text. It's much longer and painful so if "2" is good enough you could skip the below text. Please note that I'll use a terminology from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statem ent#section-1.2 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc -bess-bgp-car-problem-statement*section-1.2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VQI-5zbHY7CE6c lhUhOhP9Z_PljSz_MeeS11L5-pq_RckcjiDJdGhd0N2QNUDSgu$> and that colored route are not to be confused with color-aware route. Let's consider option C with 2 domains: +----------------+ +----------------+ | E3 | | | V/v with C1 |----+ +----+ +----|/ | E1 | | N2 | | E2 |\ |----+ +----+ +----| W/w with C2 | | | | | Domain 1 | | Domain 3 | +----------------+ +--- ------------+ * Service routes MUST be colored using BGP Color Extended-Community to request intent - V/v via E, colored with C * Colored service routes MUST be automatically steered on an appropriate color-aware path - V/v via E with C is steered via (E, C) First color resolution seem the above one. A priori the color from the VPN route (V/v via E with C) is the same as the color from the transport route (E, C) as both are chosen by the Egress domain (Domain 3). Agreed or am I missing something? Now in domain 1 and let's assume that domain 1 uses color C to mean "high bandwidth" while domain 3 use color C to mean "low delay" First, let's notice that key is (E,C) so we are not going to mix/compare color C between (E2, C) and (E3, C). We are interested in different colors to reach a specific destination E, and all colors for that destination are consistent (defined in the domain of E). So I don't see any issue with ECMP or protection that have been raised during the meeting. Let's continue with next steps * Color-aware routes MAY resolve recursively via other color-aware routes - (E, C) via N recursively resolves via (N, C) Here I can see the mismatch as C from (E,C) from domain 3 while C from (N,C) is from domain 1 and hence may not be directly comparable without a mapping. So mapping is needed (I think all solutions will require a (re)mapping). Except for this remapping, is there a big issue such as confusion? Coming back to the remapping, this seems to depend on the internal routing solution used in Domain 1: - If FlexAlgo, N2 can probably do the mapping : N2, C1 is advertised in Domain 1 FA associated with the right meaning (e.g. low delay) - worst case we need to re-color i.e. express that the color-aware route (E,C) need to be resolved using a specific color. Personally, I'm not sure why the same BGP Color Extended community can't be reused just like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statem ent#section-1.2.3 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc -bess-bgp-car-problem-statement*section-1.2.3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VQI-5zbHY7CE 6clhUhOhP9Z_PljSz_MeeS11L5-pq_RckcjiDJdGhd0N2X3yl744$> but that's a detail and defining a different community Local-Color-Mapping-Extended-Community https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-03#section-2.8 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc -bess-bgp-car-03*section-2.8__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VQI-5zbHY7CE6clhUhOhP9Z_PljSz _MeeS11L5-pq_RckcjiDJdGhd0N2atrcsQQ$> which seems to indicate the same thing (the color of the color-aware route to use when resolution is done). That's all for the route journey. Hopefully all that text will be useful to pinpoint the issue that you have in mind. --Bruno ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. Juniper Business Use Only
- [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Natrajan Venkataraman
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Nagarajah, Moses
- Re: [Idr] BGP CAR - multiple color domains Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)