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

Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com> Mon, 28 October 2019 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <santosh.pallagatti@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 87A4E120098 for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:02:59 -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 TAtGMoS1gCQr for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (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 CF51F120073 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id r1so10239015wrs.9 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
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=6Tm9Q8VjYh2zGOO3BWKZceOBPthORFMGhNnvMK+1yHo=; b=ev0r7PK02U+i6HTvobvRcXkVkXBmDCZoAH4agIavB/l4U1ZpbCCW+ao+xFT52CGPYb aTAjaxCXOD4zIJq8/IMA7CdrqlwAUOqBF1xRynMbs1XzOCy7rceVuVh8RmeogsunccvI TwHxrVutqCjfq7Ffs1K10wBKgoX2Xy+i34UOYZem2eB2OcEC0cMawzNmwOvEfJLuWLFs HxehRKOzWGF//WJOoN4jkvETOK7f+DR8HTLcaGKejM1Qd9jMTQNfbw0CGSYOrqrBdGZa XdfNUUTwAotWuTn6jQuT/jZaygiG0rWiVOgdIbkz6Oder9jIBRQJeHlljkGfbfwL40L3 65Lg==
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=6Tm9Q8VjYh2zGOO3BWKZceOBPthORFMGhNnvMK+1yHo=; b=HjyKZ4iqO7UXAzSu2DYO8UrlkfcDHDAkr/o2XrodwoN6qcYmQeskLHhSvd5Gpace34 s3nL/P4fsc7x62wPL8ph4WUcUV+BKf/JWqluKjOUgMxLq0XzWgaSqcCHQaKh+tqktCdk swZlRFRqpmodB6KoTCHiej+e21hgKCt7gxfjyjKtJASKawrdWHmeBIInhIf95EyXTXzR s7kL7iBux0Hvpc9K4+By8w07ql+CLv7+gTMh0MjjXidEyuAQwDc22l1njVJOhAbFBKIe 7c2ga4aPq3TUmSI1N16rZNUF3v0/MFnmwYWhZqD34qd2yx/Dp1p3PJ5zhIJNpyQ9lGzH bKiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVymMXg8XmeFy9Et4g/bnU9Xy1Iqcp2l66jMVczV8JVLyEy1wl2 iBA9bWxRYa357hj1H917FIX2qpfljur6zL0eLbo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz5ealnOUJLSehk05NHYYbZ6A1gqG+tobCuDr6MbM+Zt49F+X5GIdLFQEwyo+vf1B3DGV6xWaoACCLWYtpkHNo=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:65cf:: with SMTP id e15mr14792111wrw.391.1572274975301; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAEFuwkhuP4J_1RHNU-JyUReE8ZTLZgendPivHL4zHGOszXkaEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Santosh P K <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 20:32:44 +0530
Message-ID: <CACi9rduPuTWM7WJOzmi+tvFDG5gYwyDGzUO9+cSkWJi6s3fMQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006465630595f9cbcf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/uCWi5xHrlq7EvMhlFlITZMYOxOU>
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:03:00 -0000

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
>