Re: [Lsr] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-05

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 09 March 2021 10:56 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 D00D73A19E1; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:56:04 -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 x50Bm8ZVx-nf; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:56:02 -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 71B063A19BA; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:56:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4670; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1615287361; x=1616496961; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=maYMo6zHNPKR0o1O5Z6aP4jBSneLpm5wZ1zvpUIe74E=; b=DovLK9N8vI0JaoLFdpD2UC4+xSLiPaUkTMjMETHCHTfKIe0SMOIzorSO nRtEp6tJBOTTI/pKOKAGErynroGX37GnWqo7b6MR/DmsDq+LTNcWrZBLA VNb4lzuKlixw247fIL7z3o+Y4Wo5rE/tr6SexcLWbg44ORI9bfdomYhXw c=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,234,1610409600"; d="scan'208";a="31603649"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Mar 2021 10:55:59 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 129AtwMB022823; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:55:58 GMT
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement <draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement@ietf.org>
References: <22FDE3EA-B5D1-4E4D-B698-1D79173E8637@tony.li> <6E0281D2-7755-499A-B084-CA8472949683@chinatelecom.cn> <D6B0D95F-68AD-4A18-B98C-69835E8B149B@tony.li> <018801d71499$9890feb0$c9b2fc10$@tsinghua.org.cn> <CABNhwV2SpcDcm-s-WkWPpnVLpYB2nZGz2Yv0SfZah+-k=bGx4A@mail.gmail.com> <BFB3CE24-446A-4ADA-96ED-9CF876EA6A00@tony.li> <CAOj+MMGeR4bodbgpPqDCtLZD6XmX6fkjyxLWZAKa4LC2R1tBzg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <ecf2e8b4-fdae-def6-1a29-ec1ae37f5811@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 11:55:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGeR4bodbgpPqDCtLZD6XmX6fkjyxLWZAKa4LC2R1tBzg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/b9SZaIoanQ7UC-MXKZwAmL1KHnk>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-05
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, 09 Mar 2021 10:56:05 -0000

Robert,

On 09/03/2021 11:47, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>  > You’re trying to fix a problem in the overlay by morphing the 
> underlay.  How can that seem like a good idea?
> 
> I think this really nails this discussion.
> 
> We have discussed this before and while the concept of signalling 
> unreachability does seem useful such signalling should be done where it 
> belongs.
> 
> Here clearly we are talking about faster connectivity restoration for 
> overlay services so it naturally belongs in overlay.
> 
> It could be a bit misleading as this is today underlay which propagates 
> reachability of PEs and overlay relies on it. And to scale, 
> summarization is used hence in the underlay, failing remote PEs remain 
> reachable. That however in spite of many efforts in lots of networks are 
> really not the practical problem as those networks still relay on exact 
> match of IGP to LDP FEC when MPLS is used. So removal of /32 can and 
> does happen.

think SRv6, forget /32 or /128 removal. Think summarization.

I'm not necessary advocating the solution proposed in this particular 
draft, but the problem is valid. We need fast detection of the PE loss.

And forget BFD, does not scale with 10k PEs.

thanks,
Peter



> 
> In the same time BGP can pretty quickly (milliseconds) remove affected 
> service routes (or rather paths) hence connectivity can be restored to 
> redundantly connected endpoints in sub second. Such removal can be in a 
> form of atomic withdraw (or readvertisement), removal of recursive 
> routes (next hop going down) or withdraw of few RD/64 prefixes.
> 
> I am not convinced and I have not seen any evidence that if we put this 
> into IGP it will be any faster across areas or domains (case of 
> redistribution over ASBRs to and from IGP to BGP). One thing for sure - 
> it will be much more complex to troubleshoot.
> 
> Thx,
> R.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 5:39 AM Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li 
> <mailto:tony.li@tony.li>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Hi Gyan,
> 
>      >     Gyan> In previous threads BFD multi hop has been mentioned to
>     track IGP liveliness but that gets way overly complicated especially
>     with large domains and not viable.
> 
> 
>     This is not tracking IGP liveness, this is to track BGP endpoint
>     liveness.
> 
>     Here in 2021, we seem to have (finally) discovered that we can
>     automate our management plane. This ameliorates a great deal of
>     complexity.
> 
> 
>      >     Gyan> As we are trying to signal the IGP to trigger the
>     control plane convergence, the flooding machinery in the IGP already
>     exists well as the prefix originator sub TLV from the link or node
>     failure.  IGP seems to be the perfect mechanism for the control
>     plane signaling switchover.
> 
> 
>     You’re trying to fix a problem in the overlay by morphing the
>     underlay.  How can that seem like a good idea?
> 
> 
>      >       Gyan>As I mentioned advertising flooding of the longer
>     prefix defeats the purpose of summarization.
> 
> 
>     PUA also defeats summarization.  If you really insist on faster
>     convergence and not building a sufficiently redundant topology, then
>     yes, your area will partition and you will have to pay the price of
>     additional state for your longer prefixes.
> 
> 
>      > In order to do what you are stating you have to remove the
>     summarization and go back to domain wide flooding
> 
> 
>     No, I’m suggesting you maintain the summary and ALSO advertise the
>     longer prefix that you feel is essential to reroute immediately.
> 
> 
>      > which completely defeats the goal of the draft which is to make
>     host route summarization viable for operators.  We know the prefix
>     that went down and that is why with the PUA negative advertisement
>     we can easily flood a null0 to block the control plane from
>     installing the route.
> 
> 
>     So you can also advertise the more specific from the connected ABR…
> 
> 
>      > We don’t have any prior knowledge of the alternate for the egress
>     PE bgp next hop attribute for the customer VPN overlay.  So the only
>     way to accomplish what you are asking is not do any summarization
>     and flood al host routes.  Of course  as I stated defeats the
>     purpose of the draft.
> 
> 
>     Please read again.
> 
>     Tony
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lsr mailing list
>     Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>