Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Tue, 17 November 2020 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 5E3D03A156C for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:09:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, 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 x_K5yHj71-kO for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (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 7BF7A3A1564 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id gv24so984353pjb.3 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:09:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1HArBftSycKBr+bVAGzgpFQtn5Bg8ZVtVMwX7oN+NMg=; b=ubtTaKBjKNeelbZC2JIkGjHpdcXPQWiyJFbkoJDBJxJ3zt6mUIoYjsgw2nBhByHAUG fXtJqALdIexjAkKPq4q4sVLW7H0d5d9s+ycyMmxBSiwBEm9PxY9YT4M5v7x+Gyv4Xq9k 7eCIFTwZAolmzS4sSe83xiHx0Hefai0HUSY2/rCugas63z8pqgAX9XTn4rJUX/uXZf+A HgGd1KFYzUDbaldQzXTLlh9+mUDrPCqRIpXjy67PoWiTj9B/OsFYQtE1mQFbZsCof8ns w0MtiWtTBUfXjJPey3PZ8XTqYfUpnlLPDiqqXirHH5z7ZGd19BwupKKlMOUEvx6wdy+n deFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1HArBftSycKBr+bVAGzgpFQtn5Bg8ZVtVMwX7oN+NMg=; b=I15SlNX2gVzhQlo/C8/SgL5+rcIqK26CuTSvRPq5lw/ervKd/mSawPJrCUmQJXGUeN dcI5GnozQ4QFykDUOGIC0AVJ2GGhafO7mpy4nWb4XBpsmy/KhvZHNwN66ZQYjfbt2TPU K/ZLV8Ivo/a+xYDRGki7XfY9wcyQfs0XMXHfnR7V7a6A1P1Geacz9/kuI46SJRizxyzp fJI7i3o3KIy9H8Wblhmab2TDAYZRohiDBjDCP1TkexvyogvvoZv5S52tvP3lwlmL1C9l u0OQTAZ48vivhmSvcbvXWs9vOSLT9Yr7sTLGjKDfZ3ODNwCFBTwkOs2/pYu3LpEMuqR9 e6Yg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Pp+RwaypvGMXnk/y2z2nJMmJK82TXMBTjEKOwnAH+bJjA9Hoh 2d/bwiudnEXWK7gVp2+J8ECsqxC9Sk8Qxg6ucss=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1TUCPawdwfneL1G7cFaHmgRp5ag5P9L8oUqGDdQP6ncYh1V+vJv7zcIqNVs+5t1kRCKgCfnB9d7rvtkutyfA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6a84:b029:d8:c8a9:e04d with SMTP id n4-20020a1709026a84b02900d8c8a9e04dmr921484plk.74.1605640183791; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:09:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <32DFCE3A-D41C-48CA-928A-37011D158AEF@cisco.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:09:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV0xyWbV_BCn5YmRpVha+hc7SWYSaGTPGwvueW=HxhEj+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cac45905b4523ce4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ELtVlbX5Fc_F8dFgOI0A6iWCQCQ>
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: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:09:48 -0000

Agreed.

Robert

Can you explain the BGP scenario you had in mind that you have mentioned a
number of times that you think this PUA feature would pertain?

I will respond to your other email separately.  I was trying to guess  as
to the BGP next hop use case you were referring to but apparently was way
off.

Thank you

Gyan

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:43 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> 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:
>
>
>
>
>
>    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.
>
>
>
> Please present us a picture indicating before and after ABRs behaviour.
>
>
>
>      Gyan> will do
>
>
>
>    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.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
> *Silver Spring, MD
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD