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, 03 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>; Alexander Okonnikov > <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <ppsenak@cisco.com>; 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 >
- [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Alexander Okonnikov
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Alexander Okonnikov
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Alexander Okonnikov
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Alexander Okonnikov
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links Acee Lindem (acee)