Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 18 November 2020 03:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 7245A3A13CE for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:34:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 NjVSQcrDQd7O for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (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 141FC3A1374 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id g19so1267147pji.0 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:34:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=ew+BPf9PC3rAzr+dVjqgKr5hBD/LPLYmGIYXjDELTIk=; b=B4e2rL82aDPwChfdn1yNN5fdxoX5qpHexQ/YjSwbDopdGTpdkl4xuy/uxulmaSEKBB VZdh6S7gTs1ljS0oZtLe5ND+8LgyWpCuNSz84fnTmwYqxHFHXNuxwHe5OENnNxZTdSik aTYLS5jIo9U5MfvdyHaEJVTPIlS3GDMJtjnQU3a4soIEhUlt/N7Xq+MPIWfneeP+yG+q BHoU4mqM8I9R4y41J63mBDmmnjRpEhYKnWf16ZUZYNxzX62u/DeCmF+soprLM/+p3SfU dmdDhb6/fhUDXfxVNUtO4GTQOypM9HglUXaZuQck/lPM0dP5Tqz+o2d4jRKLF/G5P5l5 4nWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=ew+BPf9PC3rAzr+dVjqgKr5hBD/LPLYmGIYXjDELTIk=; b=MaMrD8HixSxTt+dZrgvS/JnQUJJV9HO6/pSvdReuAk+m9FzSfInLz3AAtdXd/i8wi6 dNT4mwT9/Zq8cUaXIExImSSudYCtdKKp21BMCR6sPZeE2SzdmSeZWuc8fzSJ7ui9ACOG fiwG51ybdw6HwmZsc1vgfIVQU9FWPlVXxPPjykipyAxMlhr8IraboIVlJhqXzHLzu9xs 6vlxa9Y5KBpJHh65HuV7TzHDk9jcdgOxoAiG421KSMoIb1tbp6w9yB08A9U/rH+Q5tui wUddTJ962zNc3J+GINXH1me88A7nXoJlRv2N7eMcgr+Wv7maoL32kzzkPXC55VOSlD3S cXgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tyvF90w5htg2UAKXCFdbNH/CbW0rGkWKDS8dAPS5ORVoOrxi0 VcbtC756kTTap2m6YY4e8DE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0pf+WYrtv06iK/bMCFfn4c2/TJLskRGXKZaW+EnZZwgwvMaBRl9MLgvvWtRk+1NH3OmpP2w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9f86:: with SMTP id o6mr2108127pjp.231.1605670451508; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l20sm592354pjq.33.2020.11.17.19.34.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:33:59 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <c646fecb-2d45-4ece-adc1-eb0635a58c3c@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <32DFCE3A-D41C-48CA-928A-37011D158AEF@cisco.com>
References: <CAOj+MMH7zRaXNJTRC0ua7ohasUpo0MmeqgzcU9BdpcD7wD+Yrg@mail.gmail.com> <D477846E-1086-46A8-B2D6-E552623E2643@gmail.com> <016b01d6bca9$cf908c20$6eb1a460$@tsinghua.org.cn> <CAOj+MMEKbBU1mymU2RzWzwi6Se8ZwQ9OsCBn4NUiX3YAceLdoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1yS1KdPe0hYGOUhDBpqbNqZCaO=xNEr_LaRg35b=f55g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGnRkYrTcC45QEy+F5HNCoFn75r=1gn-+OT89Q53D_pYA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1pK5JX5sDcPyRKuR67eAkAq-q3wRmYqbsfCwOj0wWjSw@mail.gmail.com> <32DFCE3A-D41C-48CA-928A-37011D158AEF@cisco.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: c646fecb-2d45-4ece-adc1-eb0635a58c3c@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5fb49630_24e99dd7_ba5e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/9AAZ_sdSQ74pyKtJUPmpR4HUZrI>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases
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: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:34:18 -0000

We have been discussing for quite some time and in different wg's (there’s IX with RS use case) BFD verification based on next-hop extraction, Robert - you should know. (also built a well working prototype in previous life).

Very simple logic:

Upon route import (BGP update received and imported), extract next-hop, walk BFD session table, if no match (no existing session) - establish (S)BFD session (Discriminators distribution is a solved problem) to the next-hop, associate fate of all routes received from it, keep timers reasonable to prevent false positives.

State is limited to PE’s importing each others routes (sharing a service) only
High degree of automation
No IGP pollution

Cheers,
Jeff
On Nov 17, 2020, 6:43 AM -0800, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>, wrote:
> Speaking as WG member:
>
> I think it would be good to hone in on the BGP PE failure convergence use case as suggested by Robert. It seems there is some interest here although I’m not convinced the IGP is the right place to solve this problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 4:02 AM
> To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>rg>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>om>, Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>cn>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> > quote_type
> >
> >
> > > quote_type
> > >    Robert, I believe the original intention was related to having the data plane converge quickly when summarization is used and flip so traffic converges from the Active ABR to the Backup ABR.
> >
> > I do not buy this use case. Flooding within the area is fast such that both ABRs will get the same info. As mentioned before there is no practical use of PUA for making any routing or fwd decision on which ABR to use. If your ABRs are not connected with min redundancy this draft is a worst patch ever to work around such a design.
>
>    Gyan> Agreed.  The point of PUA in ABR use case is the ability to track the component prefixes and in case where component is down and traffic is still forwarded to the ABR and dropped.  The other more important use case is when links are down within the area and the area is partitioned and so one ABR has all component prefixes however other ABR is missing half the component prefixes.  So since the ABR will by default advertise the summary as long as their is one component UP the summary is still advertised.  So this use case is severely impacting as now you have an ECMP path to the other area for the summary via the two ABRs and you drop half your traffic.  So now with PUA the problem is fixed and the PUA is sent and now traffic is only sent to the ABR that has the component prefixes.
> > quote_type
> >
> > Please present us a picture indicating before and after ABRs behaviour.
>
>      Gyan> will do
> > quote_type
> >
> > > quote_type
> > >    However PUA can be used in the absence of area segmentation within a single area when a link or node fails to converge the data plane quickly by sending PUA for the backup path so the active path.
> >
> > If there is no area segmentation then there is no summaries. So what are we missing in the first place ?
>
>     Gyan> Sorry I am stating that PUA feature can also be used intra area where if a link or node goes down to improve data plane convergence.
> > quote_type
> >
> >
> > > quote_type
> > > With the IGP tuned with BFD fast detection on ISIS or OSPF links and LFA & RLFA for MPLS or TI-LFA for SR local protection - with those tweaks the convergence is well into sub second.  So for Intra area convergence with all the optimizations mentioned I am not sure how much faster the data plane will converge with PUA.
> >
> > Even without any of the above listed chain of acronymous things will generally work well intra-area without PUAs.
>
>     Gyan> Agreed which is why I mentioned the BGP next hop self use case if I could figure out how PUA could help there that would be a major benefit of PUA.
> > quote_type
> >
> > Thx,
> > R.
> >
> >
> --
> <>
> Gyan Mishra
> Network Solutions Architect
> M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike
> Silver Spring, MD
>