Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

>  it would be helpful to summarize the common parts of the two solutions,

Actually IMO it would be much more helpful to summarise differences of both
solutions not common parts.

Thx,
r.



On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:23 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Les and Robert,
>
>
>
> Please see some comments inline:
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:19 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Huzhibo <huzhibo=[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak
> (ppsenak) <[e-mail]>; linchangwang <[e-mail]>;
> Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04
>
>
>
> *Hi Les,*
>
>
>
> > But existing implementations will NOT ignore a prefix reachability
> advertisement just because
>
> > it has a source Router ID set to 0 as
> draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement defines.
>
>
>
> True, but let's do not forget the bigger picture here. The dst is already
> covered by summary so for the
>
> app it really does not matter ... It is reachable anyway.
>
>
>
> Bottom line is that both solutions need to have upgraded code to use the
> new trigger.
>
>
>
> [Jie] Agreed. Consider the existence of the summary route, advertising
> Max_Metric for a prefix covered by the summary route will not make it
> unreachable. A router needs to either understand the new flags as defined
> in draft-ppsenak, or understand the semantic of the NULL originator as
> specified in draft-wang to behave accordingly. This make me wonder whether
> it is still necessary to set the metric of that prefix to Max?
>
>
>
> After several rounds of update, to me the two solutions becomes similar in
> principle , just choose different ways to encode the trigger information.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dear LSR chairs,*
>
>
>
> I am not sure what harm would it make to start WG adoption call on both
> drafts and see the results.
>
>
>
> [Jie] This sounds like a reasonable suggestion.
>
>
>
> And since the WG has been discussing this problem and the two solution
> drafts for a while, it would be helpful to summarize the common parts of
> the two solutions, and highlight their difference, so that people can
> understand the current state and make their decision.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
>
> So far I am not seeing strong and uniform adoption support for either one
> :)
>
>
>
> Not sure why some authors feel like their work was rejected.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 4:57 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Zhibo -
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Huzhibo <huzhibo=[e-mail]>
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 6:33 PM
>
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
>
> > <[e-mail]>; linchangwang <[e-mail]>;
>
> > Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>
>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
>
> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
>
> > Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04
>
> >
>
> > Hi Les:
>
> >
>
> >     I think you may have connected something. Existing routers, on
> receiving a
>
> > prefix reachability advertisement with a
>
> > U-Flag described in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/>
>
> > ureach-prefix-announce/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/>
> also will interpret that prefix as being reachable.
>
>
>
> [LES:] This statement is incorrect.
>
> RFC 5305 states:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> If a prefix is advertised with a metric larger then MAX_PATH_METRIC
>
>    (0xFE000000, see paragraph 3.0), this prefix MUST NOT be considered
>
>    during the normal SPF computation.  This allows advertisement of a
>
>    prefix for purposes other than building the normal IP routing table.
>
> <end snip>
>
>
>
> (Equivalent statement in RFC 5308 for IPv6)
>
>
>
> Existing implementations will ignore the advertisement purely on the basis
> of the metric value - this does not depend upon understanding the U bit.
>
>
>
> But existing implementations will NOT ignore a prefix reachability
> advertisement just because it has a source Router ID set to 0 as
> draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement defines.
>
>
>
> It is worth noting that AFTER the publication of
> draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-pfx-reach-loss-00 in March 2022 (subsequently renamed
> as draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce), the authors of
> draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement apparently realized they had
>  an interoperability problem with existing routers (something many of us
> had been highlighting for years) and in V10 (published in Jul 2022) an
> option was added to advertise using maximum metric (the solution already
> proposed by draft-ppsenak). But because the authors apparently didn’t want
> to abandon the use of "Router ID = 0", the new version of the draft
> proposed a dependency on how the unreachable prefix should be advertised.
> If all routers in the network indicated support for the new extension
> (indicated by yet another protocol extension - a new Router Capability
> sub-TLV for IS-IS) then the use of Router ID = 0 could be used, but if any
> router in the network did not advertise the new capability, then the use of
> max-metric is required. Which means the solution requires routers
> advertising unreachability to potentially regenerate the advertisement in a
> different form whenever the state of support by all routers in the network
> for the extension changes.
>
>
>
> > Both two draft used The 0xFE000000 metric indicates that the prefix is
> not
>
> > reachable. Doesn't make a difference at this point.
>
>
>
> [LES:] The solution defined in
> draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce does not introduce any
> interoperability issues with existing routers, does not require multiple
> encoding formats, and does not require a router to regenerate
> advertisements in a different form based on the state of support by all
> routers in the network.
>
> I think this makes a big difference. 😊
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Thanks
>
> >
>
> > Zhibo Hu
>
> >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: Lsr [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] On
> Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
>
> > > (ginsberg)
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 12:31 AM
>
> > > To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=[e-mail]>; linchangwang
>
> > > <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>;
>
> > > lsr <[e-mail]>
>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
>
> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
>
> > > Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04
>
> > >
>
> > > Changwang -
>
> > >
>
> > > It is very important to note ...
>
> > >
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > 2. The Draft #1 utilizes the existing mechanisms [RFC7794] and
>
> > > > > [RFC9084] to
>
> > > > indicate reachability by checking whether the originator information
>
> > > > is
>
> > > > >    NULL.
>
> > > <end snip>
>
> > >
>
> > > This statement is incorrect. There is no existing mechanism defined in
> the
>
> > > protocol that states that a prefix reachability advertisement sent
> with a
>
> > > source router ID == 0 implies unreachability.
>
> > > Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7794.html#section-2.2
>
> > >
>
> > > Existing routers, on receiving a prefix reachability advertisement
> with a
>
> > > Source Router ID == 0 will interpret that prefix as being reachable -
> which
>
> > > is exactly the opposite of the intent defined in
>
> > >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annouc
>
> > > ement-12.txt
>
> > > This is one of the things which is broken in this draft.
>
> > > This fact has been pointed out to the authors many times over the
> years -
>
> > > but they have consistently ignored it.
>
> > >
>
> > > On the other hand,
>
> > >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou
>
> > > nce-04.txt uses an existing mechanism defined in RFC 5305 to insure
> that
>
> > > legacy routers who do not understand the new use case or the new flags
>
> > > will ignore the prefix reachability advertisement. This has been
> verified by
>
> > > testing against multiple implementations.
>
> > >
>
> > > Please be accurate in the statements that you make.
>
> > >
>
> > >    Les
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > > From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 8:43 AM
>
> > > > To: linchangwang <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem
>
> > > > <[e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>
>
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
>
> > > > Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Changwang,
>
> > > >
>
> > > > On 30/08/2023 08:15, linchangwang wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi WG,
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > When considering adoption, it's important to take into account the
>
> > > > > following
>
> > > > drafts as well.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Draft #1 link：
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-
>
> > > > unreachable-annoucement-12.txt
>
> > > > > Draft #2 link：
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-
>
> > > > ureach-prefix-announce-04.txt
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Reasons are as follows:
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > 1. The two drafts mentioned above are similar in nature.
>
> > > > >    The draft #1 covers more scenarios than the draft #2 as
> mentioned
>
> > > > > by
>
> > > > Zhibo Hu mail.
>
> > > > >    Therefore, a more in-depth discussion and technical comparison
>
> > > > > should
>
> > > > take place before any adoption decision is made.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > 2. The Draft #1 utilizes the existing mechanisms [RFC7794] and
>
> > > > > [RFC9084] to
>
> > > > indicate reachability by checking whether the originator information
>
> > > > is
>
> > > > >    NULL. On the other hand, the draft #2 introduces a new flag to
>
> > > > > indicate
>
> > > > reachability.
>
> > > > >    From an implementation perspective, it would be easier to
>
> > > develop
>
> > > > > using
>
> > > > the existing RFC mechanisms.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > 3. The Draft #1 covers more scenarios and can address the
>
> > > > > aggregation issues
>
> > > > of multiple ABRs.
>
> > > > >    However, the Draft #2 explicitly states in Chapter 6 that it
> does
>
> > > > > not support
>
> > > > this scenario.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > to be more precise, draft #1 talks about more scenarios, it does not
>
> > > > solves any of them, as these scenarios can not be solved by what the
>
> > > > draft #1 introduces.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > draft#2 clearly states the fact that these scenarios are not
> addressed.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > thanks,
>
> > > > Peter
>
> > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > 4. If we remove the additional scenarios covered in Draft #1 and
>
> > > > > compare the
>
> > > > two drafts, the only remaining difference is the method of indicating
>
> > > > unreachable prefixes -
>
> > > > >    either through a UPA flag or using the originator TLV.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Thanks,
>
> > > > > Changwang
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > > > From: Lsr [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] On
> Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 3:58 AM
>
> > > > > To: lsr
>
> > > > > Cc: [e-mail]
>
> > > > > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
>
> > > > Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > LSR Working Group,
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable
>
> > > > > Prefix
>
> > > > Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04.
>
> > > > > Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to
>
> > > > > September 7th,
>
> > > > 2023.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Thanks,
>
> > > > > Acee
>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > > > Lsr mailing list
>
> > > > > [e-mail]
>
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> > > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > ------------------------
>
> > > > -----------------------------------------
>
> > > > > 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地
>
> > > 址
>
> > > > 中列出
>
> > > > > 的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全
>
> > > 部
>
> > > > 或部分地泄露、复制、
>
> > > > > 或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或
>
> > > 邮
>
> > > > 件通知发件人并删除本
>
> > > > > 邮件！
>
> > > > > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information
>
> > > > > from New
>
> > > > H3C, which is
>
> > > > > intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed
>
> > > > > above. Any use
>
> > > > of the
>
> > > > > information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited
>
> > > > > to, total
>
> > > > or partial
>
> > > > > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than
>
> > > > > the
>
> > > > intended
>
> > > > > recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error,
>
> > > > > please notify the
>
> > > > sender
>
> > > > > by phone or email immediately and delete it!
>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > > > Lsr mailing list
>
> > > > > [e-mail]
>
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> > > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > > Lsr mailing list
>
> > > > [e-mail]
>
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > Lsr mailing list
>
> > > [e-mail]
>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
>