Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 03 October 2019 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.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 608271200CE for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 NsgmgRodoIem for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (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 2DD40120025 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id a2so2219603pfo.10 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 10:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
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=yJwEYtxDurEmLOBBUrl9OzAI1T9N/nNAYiodRCnNKHc=; b=uM7KESO++8zD+RYVTpilOUg5GZ4BmOTHk5EgvYW7MQDdJVmMoMaAus/OnWj/oKJegm 3E1ivOFeSk6kZilqoGO42OYa07grnTv64myzimvuxCOXMpY2XSZLa9XW2z/So3oKICgI tFmHhI/+bJHEvhb6mfCVXuCnIeZ61FJr9XzULfWpajrSx9AozDhvgy+ycZgwlIpNrcR8 ir3VrhROOce7kusaqbtBT49Cs710C9ARepZaVdOcWk6PUqBSbbqMedzHfUiBU3RYYO8E /CIxsBM1VfdHWfFUI/yUZdIbpczzs1b5+p/G5S+XMqjLoQnDvYwKrzxd618AvatrPDb8 BZUw==
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=yJwEYtxDurEmLOBBUrl9OzAI1T9N/nNAYiodRCnNKHc=; b=Mf2JWh6tn/O5XOh8z8ouM6M8IZrLk2ReqBMNcxx9o0v2JlnDhMQUOyM0R9CyDMhMWh +p4Mb+dKA21I0ZjSnw8uO7Xq+7sbL04r0CsNylkF4yobMnLUe2K5Dr9YYB4Sa9pfkpep KO5yZwPe0pagfJ7sCfjyfaYt1REa8msnptGMqgDeWRmS5DdSX9htlzEGpyyxJ2p+DGbq L0SKesw0no5msbMewKz1y5eh50mzn4GcpRgwLQ/gzo9u0j2DLxAEZkMFRrGDYF8w2rka 7iWAqhGwYM2GZcu60mIg8vi9+KQY0cmoorDdGTRY+xKU1u+QR83yuao2fsxE6uLljy+/ chsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU67pbYovLPflxKQdgZklAse318hZNARxvdwlCAjAuaESukWy3M QYGcryLpHGn/Nz5mj08UX94=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyQWLWl9uzxi9z6j6ao3ocHm1hlSgdPkaPiVgYc4m3RuFIp1oCGWCOHnnGfdXR88cZBBQU/+Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:5a0b:: with SMTP id y11mr11040990pgs.114.1570125441472; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 10:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.5.5.194] ([50.235.77.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm4093668pff.39.2019.10.03.10.57.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Oct 2019 10:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:57:09 -0700
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
Cc: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>, =?utf-8?Q?YADLAPALLI=2C_CHAITANYA?= <cy098d@att.com>, "=?utf-8?Q?lsvr=40ietf.org?=" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <49a1a165-35e3-48f9-b8e8-b78c06303682@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <5E9B33AF-9310-4E91-BB4B-D6AFF1FABD99@arrcus.com>
References: <D2BB4EDE-97FD-4A82-A93D-45203A34A339@cisco.com> <CA0B675FC61D874D8A9EB2C7B5CEA7872B6A7E11@MISOUT7MSGUSRDG.ITServices.sbc.com> <1DBF92B2-D384-4071-9156-B20795F099AB@cisco.com> <CAEFuwki8QBRL=ZXFy46RCgTyUX4ffYvVAeRe-rFwbcqL=zLRLw@mail.gmail.com> <0A1F41E2-AC1E-4724-A8B6-DE855088FDF4@cisco.com> <1B89E943-C2D0-41C9-B8FE-17CA7F0240EA@cisco.com> <CAEFuwkg_dg2ASfjqzo1_MAfOHh+HB6jLecftFgRh0wTaYRJgYA@mail.gmail.com> <0ED4311E-0D67-401F-BB18-B34865174DB4@cisco.com> <CACi9rdswLh2j4f_VdMKowYk9dD1fqGW_SBxLsBYTPTsr2SP7Gg@mail.gmail.com> <5E9B33AF-9310-4E91-BB4B-D6AFF1FABD99@arrcus.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 49a1a165-35e3-48f9-b8e8-b78c06303682@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5d96367e_2dfbcb8c_2a6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/LGv2tjlULJv7DoWOOMV-R4sAvi8>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
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, 03 Oct 2019 17:57:27 -0000

Keyur,

RR (or route server in eBGP case) don't reset the NH so if they are not in the forwarding path, traffic will never go through them anyway (and you don’t want inconsistent connectivity graph just because you happen to run RR on one of the devices in path).
Much more realistic use case would be traffic draining, where, before you go into maintenance, you’d like to divert as much traffic as possible (all transit).

Cheers,
Jeff
On Oct 3, 2019, 10:19 AM -0700, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>;, wrote:
> Hi Santosh,
>
> We can add the use case in the applicability draft. This bit could be used when you have a RR/Controller based peering model in CLOS (where RR/Controllers are not in the forwarding path). You may want RR/Controller to announce its reachability using H-bit so that they are not being used as a transit.
>
> Regards,
> Keyur
>
> From: Lsvr <lsvr-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;
> Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:46 AM
> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>;
> Cc: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>;, "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>;, "lsvr@ietf.org"; <lsvr@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
> Resent-From: <keyur@arrcus.com>;
>
> All,
>     If R-bit or H-bit functionality is being introduced then wanted to know should you not callout for use case here? Use-cases in applicability document does not cover this and would like to also understand how this can be used CLOS and non-CLOS/FAT-tree topology..
>
>
> Thanks
> Santosh P K
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:10 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
> > Hi Pushpasis,
> >
> > From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>;
> > Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 3:34 PM
> > To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;
> > Cc: "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>;, "lsvr@ietf.org"; <lsvr@ietf.org>;
> > Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
> >
> > Hi Acee,
> >
> > Just saw the latest version of the draft. I wanted to understand what is the exact difference between the values 1 and 2. Just to clarify my doubt let's consider a prefix P that is only originated by node N. Now what will be the reachability of prefix P in the two scenarios (first with SPF Status TLV value set to 1 vs with SPF Status TLV value set to 2). Will P be unreachable in both cases? My understanding is it should still be reachable when the value is set to 2.
> >
> > If my understanding is correct, then perhaps we need more clarifications on the following text.. especially for the case there is no next link from this node.
> >
> > "If the current Node NLRI attributes includes the SPF status
> >           TLV (Section 4.1.2) and the status indicates that the Node
> >           doesn't support transit, the next link for the current node is
> >           processed."
> >
> > If the P is unreachable in the later case too (value set to 2), then I don't see what is the difference between using the values 1 and 2.
> >
> > In this case, the current node is not unreachable as we’ve already taken it off the candidate list and processed the local prefixes. Optionally, the interface addresses on the current node have also been installed. At this point, we are simply not using any of the links in the SPF graph which will have the effect of preventing transit traffic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Pushpasis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:15 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
> > > After discussion with my co-authors and Pushpasis, we are planning on defining an SPF Status TLV for the Node Attribute NLRI analogous to the one defined for Links and Prefixes. However, for the Node Attribute TLV, the status would have an additional value indicating the node should not be used for transit traffic.
> > >
> > >                           0 – Reserved
> > >                           1 – Node unreachable with respect to BGP SPF
> > >                           2 – Node does not support transit with respect to BGP SPF
> > >                   3-254 – Undefined
> > >                       255 – Reserved
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Acee
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Lsvr <lsvr-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;
> > > Date: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:15 AM
> > > To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>;
> > > Cc: "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>;, "lsvr@ietf.org"; <lsvr@ietf.org>;
> > > Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
> > >
> > > Hi Pushpasis,
> > > This OSPFv3 R Bit and IS-IS O bit are basically the same functionality. The node is not used for transit but is used for local prefixes.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Acee
> > >
> > > From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>;
> > > Date: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 2:53 AM
> > > To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;
> > > Cc: "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>;, "lsvr@ietf.org"; <lsvr@ietf.org>;
> > > Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
> > >
> > > Hi Chaitanya and Acee,
> > >
> > > How about the 'O' bit in Node-Flag-Bits TLV defined in RFC 7752 section 3.3.1.1? I suppose the node can set the 'O' bit when it wants to take itself out from all transit paths. I know the 'O' bit is more related to the scenario when ISIS topology is being exported in BGP-LS. But I suppose we can use that for BGP-LS-SPF as well.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Pushpasis
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:35 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
> > > > Hi Chaitanya,
> > > > I think this is a good idea and will discuss with my co-authors.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Acee
> > > >
> > > > From: "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>;
> > > > Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:02 AM
> > > > To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;, "lsvr@ietf.org"; <lsvr@ietf.org>;
> > > > Subject: RE: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
> > > >
> > > > Correct like a R-Bit.
> > > >
> > > > I have read this draft and I support it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Chaitanya
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This communication may contain information that is privileged, or confidential.. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>;
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:42 AM
> > > > To: YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA <cy098d@att.com>;; lsvr@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chaitanya,
> > > >
> > > > Exactly what do you mean by node cost out and what use case are you trying to satisfy. If a node wants to remove itself from the topology, it can simply withdraw its link NLRI. However, are you looking for a mechanism similar to the OSPFv3 R-Bit as a Node NLRI SPF Attribute?
> > > >
> > > >    R-bit
> > > >       This bit (the `Router' bit) indicates whether the originator is an
> > > >       active router.  If the router bit is clear, then routes that
> > > >       transit the advertising node cannot be computed.  Clearing the
> > > >       router bit would be appropriate for a multi-homed host that wants
> > > >       to participate in routing, but does not want to forward non-
> > > >       locally addressed packets.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Acee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Lsvr <lsvr-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>;
> > > > Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:31 AM
> > > > To: "lsvr@ietf.org"; <lsvr@ietf.org>;
> > > > Subject: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
> > > >
> > > > Hi Authors,
> > > > The draft does not explicitly call out mechanisms for node cost out. It would be good to call out mechanisms to cost out a node explicitly.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Chaitanya
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chaitanya Yadlapalli
> > > > Network Infrastructure And Services
> > > >
> > > > AT&T Services, Inc.
> > > > 200 S Laurel Ave, Middletown, NJ 07722
> > > > o  732.420.7977  |  cy098d@att.com
> > > >
> > > > This communication may contain information that is privileged, or confidential.. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Lsvr mailing list
> > > > Lsvr@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lsvr mailing list
> > Lsvr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr
> _______________________________________________
> Lsvr mailing list
> Lsvr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr