Re: [Lsvr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-11
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 10 December 2020 10:32 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B58D43A0825; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:32:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 wtRlMZdnP8BO; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (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 07ABB3A0C47; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:31:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id qw4so6554267ejb.12; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:31:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H+JXuUuUGHUlso2djv5S0FFTcroIfvpgKrw+5jEcY9Y=; b=omgM/M1DjIuun0ZTFs8oj8IGLQgJV47MM5/oTKXDbaYLZEnAj+i9HtAsH0upMhanPF URlxNrTxs5CX5fmA1IYF40CSCAaLVbOHnMIPDRRubPvsDdcD6SuplwC7f9ftGNRpi7Ug /YqpOgyU/vHzie5NQAzJ6ck6EX+TDTmgWhgoICTTKvoOq0+EBLBRW9ZyazdZp3KhhnAq hnCoUlM4o/uMj3g3M4KB13gadRBDdUasf6a/c9jSl5JdOZqG+DYu50OF0tto+8EbXJl/ qGmCcWGhrWMFacdhiUm90Po1+XCHgUs6F4lCbb8OYVX1SRg3LYQTxQe7DOoqUUoHh2hb sf6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H+JXuUuUGHUlso2djv5S0FFTcroIfvpgKrw+5jEcY9Y=; b=q86E10qjZis/zJlOqa0U2S8K9Y8sK2rCOQSUBJ8pFF8iASHlh5jtVJPyiVB8c1Ej+d VmfpFsGe3JUBZz/xCzPmN0TMej6RICpJTxuHNAZ/aehNLmEUODAq4Z50+E78cChdjeHc Q1kl3FFr/eronaQucYKb4CUahjldmaycABtZzkJWJtDqn2QujOw2nzM34n7TQUHhEm6U QbCYQEZdVNSVqXi6PxOewYoyu3I6YXHViQlYgLITbYXrroYrNTYBtiZbCnakSLsOiFaR UwHUoMcQyC7IAGFwRo7pxhOGjd70MWOFaojnjflLJ1MpA3I83Je2skxt/oZ6KHUKBElp 4dAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531dy0bjyrA0GtdTX+cbUIYy1PbtavYyi662FT2GJjFVHWr/3foz CUJxgVfCimxd1H7iT+7uuvVT2m5ysSxWvLlc0E4weZoo
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyKuC5nB5XIU/ao/1hOoHFBcelTWSUFDBTgDJnKxy8I8z1nUVYwKKJPhSYOTL8h5TYo72MsLHW9nAv4seUOCQc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cf81:: with SMTP id um1mr5992368ejb.122.1607596317880; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:31:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:31:56 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsx6Y6aQHEkATvtWfbHKo8T3GnmVKZ0U-MAHvpsHtehNvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMMESsx6Y6aQHEkATvtWfbHKo8T3GnmVKZ0U-MAHvpsHtehNvw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:31:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESsx6FQLVtP_D4VcxAj-gdkz0bapAU0C7U--MbcHsGZPK=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf@ietf.org
Cc: "lsvr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsvr-chairs@ietf.org>, Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/AsJvYKX7A-43vJFuRVVBI-ewIGk>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-11
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:32:02 -0000
On November 27, 2020 at 10:14:34 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote: Hi! ... > I haven't read draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability yet -- if some of the answers > are there, please point me to it. When I finish that document I'll consider > whether the documents need to be returned to the WG. For now, I'll rely on > the Shepherd to help in moving this document forward. I just finished my review of the applicability draft (sent separately), and have decided to return both documents to the WG. While considering the other document, a couple of additional comments/questions came up. Please see below -- I tried to put them where they might have made sense within the original review, but are new points. Thanks! Alvaro. ... > - In a "traditional" link-state protocol, there are a number of LSAs that > define a node: router LSA, network LSA, etc. Please describe how a node is > fully described in BGP SPF -- and how the different NLRIs are associated to > describe that one node. ... [major] lsvr-applicability talks about the ability of controllers (or other boxes) to listen in on BGP SPF (I'm calling it a "listening node"). Is there an expectation that a BGP SPF peer should advertise a description of itself? If so, then a "listening node" needs to be specified so that it doesn't end up attracting traffic. If not, then not advertising a local description is equivalent to not being available for transit -- if done on purpose (by a rogue node, for example) may result in a partitioned topology, DoS, etc.. ... > 157 A primary advantage is that all BGP speakers in the BGP SPF routing > 158 domain will have a complete view of the topology. ... [major] §6.5.5/lsvr-applicability talks about using BGP SPF to provide Topology Visibility. How can BGP SPF be used that way? Assuming that flooding happens before SPF runs (or even regardless of whether it does), I guess that it would be possible to use BGP SPF (and not BGP-LS) to discover the topology. This case may be possible whether of not BGP SPF is used for routing (or has a less-preferred admin distance). Is that something you want to add to the specification? Would a don't-run-SPF mode make sense? Assuming that topology discovery/visibility is a specified application of BGP SPF, we should contrast it with BGP-LS. Several things come to mind: the general distribution model is different, the consumer in BGP-LS is a "listening node" in BGP SPF, the source of the information is different (which may or may not be congruent with the IGP)... ... > 253 2.3. BGP Peering in Route-Reflector or Controller Topology ... > 263 This peering model, known as sparse peering, allows for many fewer > 264 BGP sessions and, consequently, instances of the same NLRI received > 265 from multiple peers. It is discussed in greater detail in > 266 [I-D.ietf-lsvr-applicability]. [] RR/Controllers not congruent with the data path. This is a typical BGP configuration, but in the case of BGP SPF, we end up with typical controller/SDN type issues where the communication goes to the controller before even the directly connected peer (except for link liveliness). Also, what if the connection to the controller is affected by the connectivity of the network itself? I made a similar comment in the lsvr-applicability draft, but because route-reflection (at least the function) is mentioned several times in this document, then it would be idea to include considerations about the (general) use. [major] The applicability draft focuses on the use of BGP SPF in a DC. What about other uses? In general, it seems to me that BGP SPF could be used in many of the same environments where a link-state protocol is used; with the caveats of having a single flooding domain, no dynamic peer discovery,... It might be a good idea to add something like that (a paragraph or two) somewhere, and point to the applicability draft for specifics about DC (and not just a specific peering model, as above). ... > [major] Can the BGP SPF session also support other AFI/SAFI pairs? If so, > what are the implications/limitations because of the peering models. Should > this document (similar to rfc7752bis) recommend/require the isolation of BGP > SPF in it's own BGP session? Why/why not? IMHO, it should be required. The other reason for trying to isolate the session is the probable existence of latency sensitive needs in a datacenter. Maybe even going as far as configuring different parameters for the TCP session. Is that something that a BGP SPF implementation in a DC should consider? ... > [major] What about the AS_PATH? lsvr-applicability (§6.3) talks about using a filter based on the AS_PATH. What checking should be done on the AS_PATH? Should the receiver check for an AS loop (which is specified in Phase 2 of the Decision Process)?
- [Lsvr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-11 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Lsvr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-11 Alvaro Retana