[netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Tue, 02 April 2019 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4080D120187; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.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 kFMCN-aiKNkk; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta25.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta25.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9E5A120103; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.226.52.103] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-3.bemta.az-a.eu-west-1.aws.symcld.net id DA/4A-26211-40C53AC5; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 12:56:36 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1WTW0zTUBjHOeu6FUJNHSCf8xKcmCjasSHBkUh ijBq84CW+GIRokcIWt0LWosMn8Ip3ECS6cB14CSIJhAcjhCCXKAgC+qDiFBGQiRoTTRAdGls6 FF9Ofuf//67NKYFpPCotwToE1s4xVp0qQBm9aiqcxpKqkgwfr8aaCj+XYab+mlKVqXwgFzf1f /JiG5TxRd56PL66+ocivuGZG+3GEnELl5LhOIiba8cuoMzJ9Y7Hp4sVOag45hwKIJSUC4PGpm lMumiofAUUPOxF8uUNgoor7/BzyJ9QUXHQcOe1SuJgaguUTrVgEmPUNjjx9axa4iAqEnI7epV yTDTcGM1Ty6yHqfGRGfanKPh5xjkTAxQJRaVdM7qSCodWz/CMTlLJUDNZhCRG1AL43l2rkHuF wuBouULOpaC6uQ+TOQQ+jPzG5fgUGBqrRLK+DK69KVHLvASelp/36QnQ3JYn9iJEXg6NnmRpX 6AGEYwUe30xEXDxx7SvlxXuXn7iq7MYxrz3ffN341B3KUFiDXUIHpV88+lLoebisI/7Mfjl9H 0rDlzn2zF5x/nQdX1UmY9WOues5pwT5pwTJutroKLpq0rm1XCz8iM2yz2tI4q5egVS16B1KXZ LulmwMRYrbTQYaKMxijbGrqVjYvTMMZrRs1n0UZYXaKOeOcrr+WzbIWuqnmOFBiS+tNTMBxvv obrb6W1oIaHQhZC1EVVJmnkpGanZZoY3H7BnWVm+DS0mCB2QwftFb76dTWcdaRar+FxnbSACd cHkpkTRJvlMxsZb0mWrG8USra7hUoxoHHovnvelU6PkMjhWG0oelxIoKcGcxf0tN/sDPEVLtE Ek8vPz0wRmsnabRfjfn0ChBNIFkZ1SlUALJ/ztOiEOpBAHMmWVSwMJzD9Lm4OqCj8b3F/i/F0 RbmLii/+uaIP31sQW9eamFYu4Auy0I3ynV13UMH2k46f7pTZyfOPWzayfJ3dPT85Z26+4MGtF Wk/fFB7QecpRv8pQ8KrSoM8fj1rtZkKEO9sDepc9fz759sXQjpN89uGytqh9m8IGOH1evad97 3d6rKmFE3CXTsmbGWMEZueZP25+tW77AwAA
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-18.tower-267.messagelabs.com!1554209792!4988852!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.41.248.36]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: mailfrom-relay-check=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.31.5; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 10346 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2019 12:56:35 -0000
Received: from us-west-2a.mta.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.41.248.36) by server-18.tower-267.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 2 Apr 2019 12:56:35 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=huzaHP5BlxNHcMosRouGQ1XF813Dj+SN40SS/GtPwz8=; b=EHL8tzMLL0SbJeZcXClcO38sRNH/lvVWcZhxHDkJFoctM8ismTvxi6sjZ7J3PJcFHNFhQOEv+1vnyiVjwy4Ws8lEcrI4cmD6SeIYFGqQUe+iEsg2ecgW1cXp6WqDUTWz5ABfdE/RMFONZfq/etEkRHKlOi6deSktnQXEZc4SFkM=
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (52.135.146.159) by AM0PR03MB5508.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.182.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.16; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:56:30 +0000
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7946:b505:a799:7a25]) by AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7946:b505:a799:7a25%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1750.017; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:56:30 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: "acee@cisco.com" <acee@cisco.com>, "lhotka@nic.cz" <lhotka@nic.cz>
CC: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022
Thread-Index: AdTpUWCIX0YKVLLOR1e3tCxq2BOuxw==
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:56:30 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR03MB38285BA9EA4FBA183FFEBB929D560@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 95316730-ace9-4a0c-eff3-08d6b76aa05a
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR03MB5508;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR03MB5508:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR03MB5508C0E06CC6D019BDBF9E9C9D560@AM0PR03MB5508.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0995196AA2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(366004)(51874003)(189003)(199004)(52536014)(110136005)(99286004)(55016002)(486006)(106356001)(790700001)(71190400001)(71200400001)(2906002)(53936002)(86362001)(97736004)(476003)(105586002)(6436002)(5660300002)(4326008)(81156014)(6306002)(8936002)(81166006)(54896002)(33656002)(6506007)(66066001)(7696005)(6116002)(3846002)(68736007)(7736002)(74316002)(8676002)(102836004)(9686003)(81686011)(54906003)(14454004)(256004)(186003)(25786009)(478600001)(26005)(72206003)(2501003)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR03MB5508; H:AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: DY31SSQdSXji8Ypjf3+cj07kqB3/HLWGuip1VbMyD5nzdF4z/v0ipnvb5Y2X7VQ0/BkUQTKPZ0qpM/9b5cotHr3Gvw2zSwjVb2eRmlrYs+FBrf9DvnY9GjQwqvscf8ADOhm/VZGuUe0JVkgbfBnd3m8tqZG1SX6WTnnJj78sFD6mOKrqkWLJDFLu5DwWZO24ebrGJq7AlT5TLVzEmNyzGoPOZTBiJFRVkKrAUeHX5XkhaQgD67hRu+Sg1EK7Gl9iPGCcnl7apyfae8L7lpv69EqK9GD4siAM915Sz9oJiGDQSqUYShhDVfpWHUTOF4Hjj+aHVQeefYg6TutzFDfGjPy/Iy4VswjiDoaGOF3B6cBNBv4NjcGxxG39R8y3kNLKVusE861AYWB+jvko9F3qavbrvq+64ru/huj886xslwg=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM0PR03MB38285BA9EA4FBA183FFEBB929D560AM0PR03MB3828eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 95316730-ace9-4a0c-eff3-08d6b76aa05a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Apr 2019 12:56:30.3043 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR03MB5508
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/O_iduSQtSPm0-yo64SHTfHuLnhM>
Subject: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 12:56:43 -0000

Acee, Ladislav and all,
I have serious doubts regarding the data model for static routes in RFC 8022.

As I see it, the data model defined in this document does not support multiple routes with common destination, different next hops and different route preferences.

This is because only route destination is considered as the key in the RIB in Appendix A of RFC 8022., while route preference is a per-route read-only leaf in the data model.

In particular (and this was my original problem) , it is possible to configure a static route with multiple next hops (using the next-hop-list construct) using the data model defined in RFC 8022, but all the next hops in this construct would have the same preference. AFAIK, many (if not all) deployed implementations support ability to configure static routes with the same destination, different next hops and different preferences, so that one of these next hops would act as a protection of the other.

For the reference, this problem does not exist in the standard MIB for the RIB (RFC 4292), because it includes both the route destination and its next hop in the list  of indices in the corresponding MIB.

What, if anything, did I miss?

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________