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

Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2019 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <pushpasis.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 DFC2F1200B4 for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:24:57 -0800 (PST)
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 Fu5PhcV2EFGk for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:24:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x129.google.com (mail-il1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (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 7D32E12008F for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:24:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x129.google.com with SMTP id r9so3932944ilq.10 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:24:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VRtPxIlTbuX63D4O/WoGfaWrWGMjUB9pugJ0L5s9LRc=; b=iWaiVODeATjAzydAf9afl0HMVt1GZUu4ubenoc6ShYVClKEFdQ8QX4ggaD9A3KVcOw qcjrdq8W8GLfJfRRCG7peowZd2plQn9kJtH5rcJ2c7tQzobGSj+C7rAgfv2Mk7YgMCeA tSWCYm9u3vSpmlcQMKr/YUf4Q6jTGgPBI/cUU7Vj0seARVZ+MOCFGHX2T7vkLBtoKQJf TG/oMRcenXEeYKoAtm43zF07x7y6TagYBWTj4Y+VB/9yFREFk7EeYwrFBN+aCNO1vMAb CltoLr4JIjVF/k+L2nDrGTUUeDH4Iizrp8UBzzyvwkOGh/Iq2OpiyzP5EZrpW1Jaaikz 9LXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VRtPxIlTbuX63D4O/WoGfaWrWGMjUB9pugJ0L5s9LRc=; b=s4WrfXuiiA7gsIn88m0nb3cCnnMDxF/AXPZreF4/j1n0HTmmJnL1QS3uDCzFdsIgPl LnMuwgS5J5SPGFWctdh0qZtcBpEg6Qs4m9gI9yJdgYj5eshgzm6SEGOq7YZEELp7nVE3 3RCkzuJfK46hwKAsHzaG7MQoW5g1YOVUqIHEql1XTAn5c3e3DpLen/51hdC3wHCoHur2 Ok++QPZnF7gskXrPOqjJgJ3Ppkg3MKGfIfKw87Xne6xsYYtpq2BEDfzeO1ppZKUrg8tq G71+kLm8OqS7Zb4zvFOLc9CMGJ3pQlDFIMnRgwLO9QlqFIVBcwq+IZp+1zEv0ytWAHnN Ya3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXzKnGhvqH1oGA/iRfyt6TaixQCL3i9YjRN82pUCMuADh50wsKC 3bkYJjK2PYIN73wDuGUQN/oVh4JbIu9NA5zMquTomg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxeK4dCux8ydYKFolvM5Sna9CVra+4gjthl5BRb7/ZtugLuy/KaLzbfon4+Dp+C85KxkrrWQ14WpheqhYlvhOc=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c08d:: with SMTP id h13mr9911860ile.241.1573187087859; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:24:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <CAEFuwkhuP4J_1RHNU-JyUReE8ZTLZgendPivHL4zHGOszXkaEw@mail.gmail.com> <CACi9rduPuTWM7WJOzmi+tvFDG5gYwyDGzUO9+cSkWJi6s3fMQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEFuwkjc2cfBk2VF7A+vKWxaXXfkd5bZaKZH5NQ33Z-y2Lgy2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEFuwkjc2cfBk2VF7A+vKWxaXXfkd5bZaKZH5NQ33Z-y2Lgy2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:54:29 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEFuwkhTEw0OC0vn6kXcMdtUC+9M96BPrq_YAcqX9hj=pgFHPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000008af2b70596ce2948"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/myWwn8hIHOFtecNanJtcH0xm034>
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 04:24:58 -0000

Hi Santosh,

Sorry for the late reply. Please find attached the packet captures from our
implementation of BGP-SPF.

Let me know if you need any other help.

Thanks and regards
-Pushpasis



On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:23 PM Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> Hi Santosh,
>
> Good to know about the progress on your side. I will try to get some
> packet captures from our implementations and send it to you at the earliest
> possible.
>
> Thanks
> -Pushpasis
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 8:32 PM Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>    Can anyone please help me with BGP-LS-SPF packet hex dump? We have
>> code added for encode and decode and wanted to understand if we can get
>> some hexdump to interop.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Santosh P K
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:15 PM Pushpasis Sarkar <
>> pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> *Hi Acee, *
>>>
>>> *Needed one more clarification  below.*
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:03 AM Pushpasis Sarkar <
>>> pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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."
>>>>
>>> *[Pushpasis] This condition applies to all the links originating from
>>> this current node NLRI. So does it mean none of the links origination from
>>> the current node will be processed? If so, the last statement ("the next
>>> link for the current node is processed") part is misleading. We can perhaps
>>> re-work to avoid processing any of the links from the current node NLRI
>>> under such scenario in a different step between step 4 and step 5.*
>>>
>>> *Thanks*
>>> *-Pushpasis*
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>