Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 03 December 2020 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C133A0E2D for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 02:17:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 zfj0x-alCyzZ for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 02:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C45E53A0E21 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 02:17:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12244; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1606990669; x=1608200269; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L8DSc7fD2Yfqm9GZ1PMNMtq5XSHVI2VFq/Pb4pyaH9c=; b=Vxk1DoQyMOlcyB/rwSiEUhO/peS3BPIxLZ7TplU1c00Bld8aEuhXDXFg eSs2wo6VblLWDG9nISt8M5dXeY3PQ0Byip3fGd+0ueVfhLdS+FXd/wey/ 8kwpRVJ6ISFNGp2U7XzBz+0c6iTLIIanqnJHdoUCDtC1PdKmsMM4EUoZ0 s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,389,1599523200"; d="scan'208";a="29174159"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Dec 2020 10:17:47 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.36] ([10.147.24.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0B3AHkNP032170; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:17:46 GMT
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <61201EB5-3F36-401A-9D39-FB0C577C7966@gmail.com> <3d3d863b-3e1f-ea87-0c45-09e119aa7c8f@cisco.com> <3FE4F6F8-6819-425E-852F-6B5B968ECAF5@gmail.com> <57b88873-b0e9-c2d3-2732-7f2629eebf27@cisco.com> <5D89BE28-934A-4EE3-915A-456AAD7AC59C@gmail.com> <F386F007-BA51-44B6-9795-18DE3E564D75@cisco.com> <AM0PR07MB6386BE057F092AD0837FE299E0F50@AM0PR07MB6386.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <ED93174A-F221-4EE4-9FCF-04442218628D@cisco.com> <MW3PR11MB4570EA1008B66087C060EBBDC1F20@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <a3595464-df30-a503-fe24-90b1ff81224e@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:17:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB4570EA1008B66087C060EBBDC1F20@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.147.24.36, [10.147.24.36]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/7FxHnVyGXJlPLPEyEgeC9hhlsoQ>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 10:17:52 -0000

Hi Ketan,

On 03/12/2020 10:31, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> The text in RFC5185 for picking the neighbor’s IP Address or IfIndex for 
> the link-data is indeed very odd and flies against how things are done 
> for normal p2p links per RFC2328.
> 
> The implementations that I am aware of do not really following this 
> “decision” of RFC5185 and instead stick to RFC2328 architecture by 
> picking the local IP address or IfIndex even for MADJ links. This way, a 
> remote router cannot really distinguish between a normal P2P link or a 
> MADJ – they look the same in the LSDB.
> 
> While the neighbor IP address can be learnt via the source address used 
> for the hello messages, there is really no simple way to learn the 
> neighbor’s IfIndex for unnumbered links [1].

rfc8510?

> 
> So IMHO the RFC5185 is in error and we should fix this if we have 
> consensus in the WG via a BIS as suggested by Acee.


I'm not convinced about the error. Nor about the need of the bis.

my 2c,
Peter


> 
> Gunter, I am not getting into your other questions because of what I’ve 
> mentioned above 😊
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ketan
> 
> [1] Note that over time we have introduced such mechanisms (RFC8510), 
> but they have all been optional and not “base/required” behavior.
> 
> *From:*Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem (acee)
> *Sent:* 30 November 2020 23:18
> *To:* Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) 
> <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>om>; Alexander Okonnikov 
> <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>om>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) 
> <ppsenak@cisco.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links
> 
> You are welcome to propose an alternate solution which could possibly be 
> accepted as a BIS document. However, this is not something that can be 
> simply changed in an Errata to reduce the complexity.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> *From: *Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> on 
> behalf of Gunter Van de Velde <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com 
> <mailto:gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, November 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM
> *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org 
> <mailto:acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>, Alexander Okonnikov 
> <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com <mailto:alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>>, 
> "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>
> *Cc: *"lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org 
> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links
> 
> The oddnes is that the architecture decision in RFC5185 to select 
> remote-ip-address instead of local-ip-address for the ‘Link Data’ is 
> making things much more complicated.
> 
> I am surprised to see that using the remote-ip-address is seen as the 
> ‘better’ choice as selecting local-ip-address. To me it seems as a worse 
> choice.
> 
> A question that was asked: How router will be able to match Link TLV 
> (RFC 3630) to corresponding Link in Router LSA?
> 
> Answer:
> 
> For unnumbered links we can match Link TLV with Router TLV using the 
> IfIndex when there is no stub type 3 link (=easy)
> 
> For numbered:
> 
> 1.we must first look if the there is a stub type 3 link
> 
> 2.If stub type 3 exists, then the RFC3630 local ip address must be used 
> to identify the correspond link within the router TLV to the neighbor
> 
> 3.If the stub type 3 link did not exist in Router TLV link, then the 
> maybe the link is unnumbered, and we try to match upon IfIndex… This may 
> give a match or no match
> 
> 4.If there is no match, then maybe the link is MADJ and we must use the 
> RFC3630 remote IP address to match upon the Link Data
> 
> 5.= over-complex. (If we used  for RFC5185 ‘Link Data = local ip 
> address’ then (2) would given answer directly)
> 
> In addition, for a router it is much simpler to learn and advertise 
> local-ip-address in Router LSAs then using a remote-ip-address.
> 
> I also believe that if we want to search something in TEDB after 
> receiving a TE Link TLV. How can we identify from the TE Link TLV if 
> multi-area or not multi-area? If we can not, then how can we create the 
> correct key?
> 
> Looking at the above, the choice of using remote-ip-address for RFC5185 
> Link Data seems not the best design that we can do, and is adding OSPF 
> complexity without benefits.
> 
> Should this not be corrected in RFC5185 and simply use local-ip-address 
> instead of the remote-ip-address for Multi-area Link Data and avoid the 
> additional unnecessary complexity the current RFC for numbered links?
> 
> Brgds,
> 
> G/
> 
> *From:*Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> *On 
> Behalf Of *Acee Lindem (acee)
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 18:01
> *To:* Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com 
> <mailto:alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) 
> <ppsenak@cisco.com <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Multi-Area interface disambiguation is required to support the OSPF MIB 
> as specified in RFC 4750. The table indexing doesn’t include the area. 
> For example:
> 
> --  OSPF Interface Table
> 
>    ospfIfTable OBJECT-TYPE
> 
>         SYNTAX       SEQUENCE OF OspfIfEntry
> 
>         MAX-ACCESS   not-accessible
> 
>         STATUS       current
> 
>         DESCRIPTION
> 
>            "The OSPF Interface Table describes the interfaces
> 
>            from the viewpoint of OSPF.
> 
>            It augments the ipAddrTable with OSPF specific information."
> 
>         REFERENCE
> 
>            "OSPF Version 2, Appendix C.3  Router interface
> 
>            parameters"
> 
>         ::= { ospf 7 }
> 
>    ospfIfEntry OBJECT-TYPE
> 
>         SYNTAX       OspfIfEntry
> 
>         MAX-ACCESS   not-accessible
> 
>         STATUS       current
> 
>         DESCRIPTION
> 
>            "The OSPF interface entry describes one interface
> 
>            from the viewpoint of OSPF.
> 
>            Information in this table is persistent and when this object
> 
>            is written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile
> 
>            storage."
> 
> INDEX { ospfIfIpAddress, ospfAddressLessIf }
> 
>         ::= { ospfIfTable 1 }
> 
> Note that if you really want to support this optimally, you could use a 
> separate subnet pre-area and have adjacencies on secondary addresses. My 
> Redback/Ericsson implementation allowed for this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Acee
> 
> *From: *Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> on 
> behalf of Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com 
> <mailto:alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, November 30, 2020 at 5:27 AM
> *To: *"Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com 
> <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>
> *Cc: *"lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org 
> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
>     30 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:56, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com
>     <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> написал(а):
> 
>     Hi Alex,
> 
>     On 27/11/2020 13:49, Alexander Okonnikov wrote:
> 
>         Hi Peter,
>         Which kind of ambiguity is meant? In case of numbered
>         point-to-point each link has its own unique IP address, so there
>         is no ambiguity.
>         Per my understanding this problem has appeared due to follow
>         reasons:
>         1) In old versions of the draft (up to -05) it was proposed that
>         multi-area links are treated as unnumbered. ifIndex to be
>         encoded in Link Data field, irrespectively whether interface has
>         its own IP address (numbered) or borrow it (unnumbered);
>         2) From -06 to -08 multi-area links are still treated as
>         unnumbered, but if interface is numbered, then IP address of the
>         neighbor (rather than local one) to be encoded into Link Data,
>         in order to make the link look like unnumbered;
>         3) In version -09 of the draft and in RFC 5185 itself there is
>         no more mentions that multi-area link to be treated as
>         unnumbered. Rather, another approach is used - if router's
>         interface is numbered, then link is also numbered; if router's
>         interface is unnumbered, then link is unnumbered. The rule that
>         specifies omitting corresponding type 3 link is added. Mention
>         of 'unnumbered' link is also removed from section 3 in RFC 5185. >
>         Hence, in version -09 with removing unnumbered nature of
>         multi-area links Link Data for numbered links had to be changed
>         from Neighbor's IP address to own IP address, as it is specified
>         in RFC 2328. From perspective of other routers this link can be
>         treated as numbered or unnumbered, depending on configuration of
>         neighbor's corresponding interface.
> 
> 
>     you are free to advertise the link as unnumbered. RFC5185 is not
>     mandating to send IP address really.
> 
> The same valid for numbered ones. I.e. I'm free to advertise the link as 
> numbered. This is straightforward when the link is numbered indeed. And 
> if we would prefer to have deal with unnumbered interfaces, we would not 
> need RFC 5185 (section 1.2).
> 
>         One question - how neighboring router will perform next-hop
>         calculation (in case it needs to do so)? If neighbor is
>         configured with numbered interface, it will treat Link Data as
>         IP next hop, which will be its own IP interface address.
>         Another question - how router will be able to match Link TLV
>         (RFC 3630) to corresponding Link in Router LSA? For example, we
>         want to calculate RSVP-TE LSP based on IGP metric (RFC 3785) and
>         thus router needs to match IGP link to TE link.
> 
> 
>     I don't believe you are going to do any traffic engineering over a
>     multi-area adjacency. MADJ is there to address the OSPF route
>     preference rules that may lead to sub-optimal routing. MADJ link is
>     not advertised for TE purposes.
> 
> Why not? We need multi-area configuration and at the same time we need 
> ability to build intra-area RSVP-TE LSPs within each of areas. And what 
> about calculating IP next hop? Which compatibility is meant in section 3?
> 
>     thanks,
>     Peter
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>         Thank you.
> 
>             27 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:50, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com
>             <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> написал(а):
> 
>             Alexander,
> 
>             On 26/11/2020 17:58, Alexander Okonnikov wrote:
> 
>                 Hi WG,
>                 RFC 5185 says that Neighbor's IP address to be encoded
>                 into Link Data field. Per RFC 2328 router's own IP
>                 address to be encoded into Link Data. What is the reason
>                 to advertise neighbor's IP address for multi-area links
>                 and not local IP address? It seems like bug. Could
>                 someone comment on this?
> 
> 
>             Advertising a neighbor address/ifindex helps to eliminate
>             ambiguity in case of parallel point-to-point adjacencies.
>             It's not perfect, but that's how it was specified. So it's
>             not a bug.
> 
>             thanks,
>             Peter
> 
>                 Thanks in advance.
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Lsr mailing list
>                 Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>