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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sun, 29 September 2019 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 4A55D12006A for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 23:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=HRZI0N6+; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=CGYvnLsy
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 xxgYJUyrvjnY for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 23:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30D0612000F for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 23:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=38049; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1569739540; x=1570949140; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=1C+ycgGPlK8fyVqRkqm47NU78E2WUmXfLOOw7Wrr+jU=; b=HRZI0N6+lkJIQ4A8J4r3a9aF2ELa19Yge8kLceRp4HttYgl9LWeVjSEt QFx3blCLsry/+xfe8JkJSfvCZgBStDXT6RNq0wnwEo5H947wNztPPB2MD H3BgHCEPy4U5j9QOm3Kt2Kn5rSseQJy7zTKN+ek00XN9EaZXC4kdeY9i/ o=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AUWFDAhWqGkTl515d/i3U7sBPTPnV8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSANiJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?= =?us-ascii?q?dEwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/Zic3EexJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0APAAAeUpBd/5ldJa1jAxkBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEMAQEBAQEBgVUCAQEBAQELAYEbLyknA21WIAQLKoQiYoJlA4pYgly?= =?us-ascii?q?JZ44PgS4UgRADUAQJAQEBDAEBGAEKCgIBAYRAAheDICM2Bw4CAwkBAQQBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQUEbYUtDIVLAQEBAQMBARARHQEBLAsBDwIBCBEDAQEBIQEGAwICAh8GCxQ?= =?us-ascii?q?JCAIEDgUigwABgR1NAx0BAgyhEAKBOIhhdYEygn0BAQWCSYJJDQuCFwMGgTQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BhX2EcoEeGIF/JmoBJx+CTD6CGkcBAYElHAEBNQkBBQcJEYJEMoImjFyDAYU?= =?us-ascii?q?tiSiOKEEKgiKRCYQCG4I3h06EKosHmEOOfQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBWQkogVhwFTs?= =?us-ascii?q?qAYJBUBAUgU6BJwECgkiFFIU/dDJ3i32CRQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,562,1559520000"; d="scan'208,217";a="625543682"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 Sep 2019 06:45:38 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (xch-rcd-016.cisco.com [173.37.102.26]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8T6jcZW021819 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 29 Sep 2019 06:45:38 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (173.37.102.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 01:45:37 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 01:45:32 -0500
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 01:45:32 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=oJ2s363L5e25d0PqtqB1ZzdeXJAfjx6gMpmLQ5HrtHNeLc82ygO+69AdAORZoPiwKWbIGDF6uWLfMJ5QW2IqKaN18Zb9PiQznHPPN+99mMnskA4XZw7KEO0LZDIDo3t+t3mweeruicXNZGiPiUcIySMlX7mSxm0r1j1kYMlQbPgu6i7GSAIOz3rgnwDien+/YE9+y8XomDQNE5wOt3B8e1b0pEzbc90r2I9Dj5ygk7lfiwGQDHzsdXZjkZ2TQEe5eaubJ5qaylxpD/R8b2lpOIytquC0Klv7DDLRv97klH7gE2ybrPb4WNu94v04ULDMQ1ISm6ZX5xsE5vgXuEPwXQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=1C+ycgGPlK8fyVqRkqm47NU78E2WUmXfLOOw7Wrr+jU=; b=GyiSYmjgkR9fkKDPr4kn76qJUmZ9H8hY5g9EBf7sxgO2n834qX58nwczGCXjpR35gh4NDR1CWfDmTNjVBnkUPWDuV8nJ1a2JaaFVTRnE7/K3UaFPS9aMxh5J71p1ZfOuIUQ3bDR4IuI5m9jpolOwsJV7+jHupRTaMRXSH/fZwJcusFcmBtgqbags1z8FpNI5ea9IBYLwarFNMrPvufm6TDddFAP+E0AthL6AY9692XLMhZb901EGBKVrVz8n4CwN2ilmccr+6hOEGq59fqTAaY+9oaUID6Iee/A12UuxXle5ivNSIJl/Rr98RtffHfoD+NKlrt0U3YZnW7YHQelDag==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=1C+ycgGPlK8fyVqRkqm47NU78E2WUmXfLOOw7Wrr+jU=; b=CGYvnLsyBrvuEMXG/5GuZHiSW+sx+3bD5n23qKYVcjh95m2izv685ScC0lheWfOUuZcgs0y3uzMmxc5R8ha3nB+beBGiHg3iNtxoMq1cdMyq6TajKmnUlruymbU1GO0vPikjLSr/O/Dulmx3meHUwXOiQLDZDulB0tT5ErT/THw=
Received: from BY5PR11MB4210.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.132.253.29) by BY5PR11MB4372.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.132.252.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2305.15; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 06:45:31 +0000
Received: from BY5PR11MB4210.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2811:8116:77d1:5843]) by BY5PR11MB4210.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2811:8116:77d1:5843%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2305.017; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 06:45:31 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
Thread-Index: AQHVcuYo8M/r5JDftkuPWSUyelTbyKc66yvg//++2wCAAt4nAIAAOHMAgAQ5fQA=
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 06:45:30 +0000
Message-ID: <1B89E943-C2D0-41C9-B8FE-17CA7F0240EA@cisco.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>
In-Reply-To: <0A1F41E2-AC1E-4724-A8B6-DE855088FDF4@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1001::5b]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 05f6496a-d277-44e2-dd2c-08d744a89f3e
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR11MB4372:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY5PR11MB4372BAD041B179AC5EE180FEC2830@BY5PR11MB4372.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 017589626D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(366004)(396003)(376002)(136003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(5660300002)(25786009)(54906003)(6506007)(99286004)(6916009)(2616005)(186003)(76176011)(102836004)(81156014)(8676002)(81166006)(53546011)(606006)(256004)(478600001)(71190400001)(71200400001)(14444005)(8936002)(316002)(6512007)(6486002)(66446008)(54896002)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(36756003)(66946007)(91956017)(229853002)(33656002)(66574012)(76116006)(6306002)(6246003)(476003)(46003)(6436002)(6116002)(446003)(86362001)(486006)(7736002)(966005)(14454004)(2906002)(11346002)(4326008)(236005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY5PR11MB4372; H:BY5PR11MB4210.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: U8aNdk/EDIDBFTI7cPoi4nqWzlcD6IZ43hmUd4tetDLdt5erDSIzm5/7FH9ILf6doXofakblHGNneaGUdilW+4FY+m3W4pstpNUuEQiN3OWsa0w5QFVcVVXY+0p3fKSDCS95ap3LUoEYLZsoa8bYflLUsNN34DPNqrAVG/OgoC7NulgA/Q4SWr3xqSGI4h5UbgOpfSMdrJ9feUV/8HBlQd0FaVGvawgELMgyhd4Yyrq8I/DFUDCQBLQYS1R2BPQWQkQRv5dYKfg9F1/M6SV+JnNsuxyuZdPzRSmOTB6HP2dmT6qd251gWYNuYe6oh9IH2PWBUw8X4cRin+adptHA77uPVfsSbevtWSPAvDc3qTPYjYqrYK0hTD5ZD6lE18XtWXjwrDNRnT0rSIkkvBm8YBLmbbFKxQ4eqpwdmlUny10bW2ryO0E8qOfedSymuFUIuKfRiHn/lTdrpZeZIAtL9g==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B89E943C2D041C9B8FE17CA7F0240EAciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 05f6496a-d277-44e2-dd2c-08d744a89f3e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Sep 2019 06:45:31.0697 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: I/60P/E9rHfvzqnGvhpM2rwAKZujnBmJtO3mWVNDpRqM9QSnpR0ZaLoy/1sDA+Ix
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR11MB4372
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.26, xch-rcd-016.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/u_72X5RukWVqC3LOOEeHgeLiZMU>
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: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 06:45:43 -0000

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<mailto: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<mailto:cy098d@att.com>>
Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:02 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "lsvr@ietf.org<mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>" <lsvr@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:42 AM
To: YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA <cy098d@att.com<mailto:cy098d@att.com>>; lsvr@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:lsvr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com<mailto:cy098d@att.com>>
Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:31 AM
To: "lsvr@ietf.org<mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>" <lsvr@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Lsvr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr