Re: [Lsvr] Adoption of draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-(signing|ulpc)

Jacob Uecker <juecker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 15 May 2020 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <juecker.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 904783A0538 for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 19:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 RhaxVvjU13mw for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (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 724DD3A0496 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id ms17so325109pjb.0 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=q66QfR4r2dmk6loYcnkWC+BX4CNd/AoOrmEPbhep95c=; b=A7dI7eYqKkb/9QZsqtneQJhKUiSRVQpZNaeOqQnjyiJTxi6Wp5b9Q13EVA9tIN0MjF /WUWjYcNX1G3Y/+h6Yh/W+enRH1DJTusYsVqzkQ277qnODWtntDfsAXoxMhdxgkz5ssK tmjpFZ4tCO/dZRPQTp74S7oqc9ti1X1ygkSItJt2yhWCqTjx5Kn3AiaRWrIvsI70tp7m fGYTlY/TLE3Tku7paeymZc8gtlYJz3cNm8aSEeMEprYt5NONfp/TbllM/OPD7VTD2eum F+qesGXpM63rpD8lCqdWw6nILiNI5U5xtBGPdCIAwCosopNk5BIg4PqXWnoTML87vbTn x9Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=q66QfR4r2dmk6loYcnkWC+BX4CNd/AoOrmEPbhep95c=; b=e9yYBJpdkNIZ8ItAsP6rz64ooNIjCiPOVpG86aIU0GQXrqRmSvZ8/IXkVrM6x/4/vH 4LAM6wb4OnnXFimmhQU4qm3IvkRfdQD2nDevnBuDIo7d0vkZp82lRJTEZmM1CML1G86r 9AdrypaVs/JSrza+G7iFhXCNBEi0n1guoJ3b9Oa+VtQL1mvrl04jihfd0WXXYdLvHCGR Tw0TneG2Q8qS/E2MVi9ZtTxxo2B002xGBZlzI5S0ULa+WPFl87V+fgy4MYZnKiTcGC5Q 3gxaj7NTk1UHai6B/A5a9/SbL+1feg628q/7lsa9RPloONX7hqrO0JW1JISVVbhbrMQC Q4Tg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jj2M8Xj18Wd7v8WAE3Fit9peWPGNyVkv2NCKPfM+gOGiGUFrm 1DNniTAX/XLRyISVf/or6HE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwbqBhAvMYbV+ZndYUo6VdjM69Q4cBeyvldit8kWMJwvh9cP2fl4OxiVeV60DPkX6aoAS3EWw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:694b:: with SMTP id k11mr1573120plt.59.1589509806763; Thu, 14 May 2020 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8801:880:3f6:81cf:6dc0:1f1f:a616? ([2600:8801:880:3f6:81cf:6dc0:1f1f:a616]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b13sm424452pgi.58.2020.05.14.19.30.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 May 2020 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Jacob Uecker <juecker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2blmzjux8.wl-randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 19:30:05 -0700
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, lsvr@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7F8FFE3D-98B2-485D-B5BB-DDD459E539AA@gmail.com>
References: <CAHw9_i+p8Dvo37Cm_=Ehj=G+YPmVHUaU7wNzOLCddxV-BRFEBQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2o8qzk12f.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAHw9_iKCPhkDTGXt6_n1JcReU1KBp1kqEVTuTXJuz6+rGFVJ6g@mail.gmail.com> <m2blmzjux8.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/TuNTfB3cInW68RUewKIXgyZ_idc>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Adoption of draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-(signing|ulpc)
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: Fri, 15 May 2020 02:30:10 -0000

I likewise fell down that line of thinking but your explanation makes sense.

1) I have read and support both draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing and draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-ulpc as LSVR WG documents.
2) Not that I saw
3) See above. 
4) I don’t have anything at this time.



> On May 7, 2020, at 2:29 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> C: It feels like more text is needed around "If a peering address has
>>>> been announced as a loopback, a two or three (one or both ends could
>>>> be loopbacks) hop
>>>>   BGP session will be established. " -- how do I know it is announced
>>>> as a loopback? How do I know what route to install to reach the
>>>> loopback? etc.
>>> 
>>> l3dl 13.2 tells you it is a loopback
>> 
>> Doh, I missed that...
>> 
>>> 
>>> 13.2.  Encapsulaion Flags
>>> 
>>>   The Encapsulation Flags are a sequence of bit fields as follows:
>>> 
>>>    0           1            2            3            4  ...       7
>>>   +------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
>>>   |  Ann/With  |   Primary  | Under/Over |  Loopback  | Reserved ..|
>>>   +------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
>>> 
>>> so how about
>>> 
>>>   For each BGP peering on a link here MUST be one agreed encapsulation,
>>>   and the addresses used MUST be in the corresponding L3DP IPv4/IPv6
>>>   Announcement PDUs.  If a peering address has been announced as a
>>>   loopback, i.e. MUST BE flagged as such in the L3DL Encapsulation PDU,
>>>   a two or three hop BGP session will be established.  Otherwise a
>>>   direct one hop session is used.
>> 
>> Close but no cigar -- I suspect I didn't fully explain my (second) question
>> If router A says that I should peer with the loopback address
>> 192.0.2.1, I need to know how to route *to* that address
> 
> you will likely want to forward, <pedantry> not route </pedantry>, to
> the peer's address which was marked as Primary, iff it is in a subnet
> which you also share.  if not, pick a forwarding next hop that is in a
> subnet you share.  if there are multiple choices, you could have
> signaled which subnet in an Upper Layer Protocol Configuration PDU
> Attribute.
> 
> if you share no subnets, then you do not have a valid underlying l3dl
> session see l3dl
> 
>   13.  The Encapsulations
>   ....
>   Further, to consider a logical link of a type to formally be
>   established so that it may be pushed up to upper layer protocols, the
>   addressing for the type must be compatible, e.g. on the same IP
>   subnet.
> 
> yes, you have to hold a lot of gorp in your head.  sorry.
> 
> but some clarifying text might keep others from falling down this rabbit
> hole.  thanks.
> 
> randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsvr mailing list
> Lsvr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr