Re: [Lsvr] [Idr] Issue 2: Auto-configuration Requirements - draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-requirements

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Mon, 10 June 2019 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 D5B561200B3; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 dMSs3361NhxC; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 3879812008B; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.25.175.69;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: <lsvr@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:30:05 -0400
Message-ID: <020201d51fc2$e8b748e0$ba25daa0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0203_01D51FA1.61A90440"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdUfwtnkXvyVBwtNTGCKb+kjo9I/HA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190610-6, 06/10/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/sF-MfUUVI2dnff2AGzUMK6Egk7U>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] [Idr] Issue 2: Auto-configuration Requirements - draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-requirements
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: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 19:30:12 -0000

This is a list of requirements for autodiscovery from: 

draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery requirements: 

---------------------------

4.  Requirements

 

   This section describe the requirements for the BGP hop-by-hop routing

   deployments that were considered for the definition of the BGP

   Neighbor Discovery extensions proposed in this document..

 

   Following are the key requirements related for the BGP neighbor

   discovery process:

 

   1.  It should perform discovery of directly connected BGP routers.

       Mechanism should support either IPv4 or IPv6 or a dual stack

       design and it should be generic for any link-layer.

 

   2.  It should include exchange of BGP peering addresses (IPv4 or IPv6

       or both) that routers can use to automatically setup BGP TCP

       peering between themselves.  The mechanism should leverage the

       existing capability negotiation process performed as part of the

       BGP TCP session establishment.

 

   3.  When BGP peering is desired to be performed over loopback

       addresses of the routers, then the mechanism should automatically

       setup reachability to the loopback over one or more underlying

       directly connected links between them.  In this scenario, the

       mechanism should also provide resolution for the BGP next-hop

       address (i.e. the loopback address) for the BGP routes exchanged

       over these sessions between the loopback addresses.

 

   4.  Mechanism should enable exchange of link-level information such

       as IP addresses and link attributes between the directly

       connected BGP routers.  It should be extensible to include other

       information in the future.

 

   5.  Mechanism should be limited to link scope for security and use

       link-local addressing only.  Cryptographic mechanisms should be

       also provided for additional security.

 

   6.  Mechanism should support capabilities for performing optional

       validation of parameters to detect misconfiguration (e.g. link

       address subnet mismatch, peering between incorrect AS, etc.) in

       an extensible manner before going on to use the link and the

       setup of the BGP TCP peering session over it.

 

   7.  The mechanism should not affect or change the BGP TCP session

       establishment procedures and the BGP routing exchange over the

       TCP session other than the interactions for triggering the setup/

       removal of peer session that is based on discovery mechanism.

 

   8.  The mechanism should leverage existing fast-detection techniques

       for failures that are used currently for EBGP sessions over

       directly connected links like fast-external-failover and BFD.

 

   9.  The mechanism should focus on the discovery process and exchange

       of status as a control plane procedure and be sufficiently

       loosely coupled with the base BGP operations to enable

       implementations to ensure scalability of BGP operations when

       using the discovery procedures.

 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 3:26 PM
To: idr@ietf.org
Cc: lsvr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Issue 2: Auto-configuration Requirements

 

IDR WG: 

 

Does IDR think that we should include a generalized auto-discovery protocol
in the IDR WG charter? 

If so, should it be for WAN or Data Center or IPRAN topologies (grid/ring)? 

 

LSVR is progressing with Layer 3 liveness in  draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-00

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl/

 

LSVR is progressing because IDR did not have a consensus on requirements for
a general Layer 3 liveness protocol in 2018. 

 

This thread is to discuss the requirements for a generalized or 

a specific auto-discovery protocol associated with BGP. 

 

My next posts will contain the requirements for LSVR Layer 3 liveness and 

draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery requirements 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery/

 

Sue Hares