[netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 (was: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022)

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Tue, 02 April 2019 13:53 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 54848120116; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 06:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.689 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, 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 S0y9Dzat1ci0; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 06:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.bemta25.messagelabs.com (mail3.bemta25.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.82]) (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 50F7812010E; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 06:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.226.52.197] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-2.bemta.az-b.eu-west-1.aws.symcld.net id 4B/67-23323-E4963AC5; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 13:53:18 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1VTa0hTYRj2OzdP4uI0M1/thktCzLNcN2ZUmER IZIgJUWl15k7bYk7b2dJZPwz7YYkVXahMW6k1UotSocgokcyym5WpiRe0ZstK0AwzSTrHM8v+ fDzf8zzv+z4vfB+NKz1UCM1n2XirhTOrKD9iRWhMChtvKk2Oqu9gtae/XcK1zeXFlNb5+jCpb f46jscQcWfGb5NxZWVjWFzV206UgO8gTRZdetYe0tj4wkNmjMRk5V0twHPQcPQx5EcTTAkOrl tjmHRRMicx+P2pm5Qv3QjO9rT4HkMzaIpZC1UVXZSEZzMbofjnA1zCOLMJcoePTnoCmF1w/VE ukj2p4GrziJgWsRoqPm2WaIIJgzt9LZOlCiYFRgYvEhJGzBwYbarE5JZB0PHROYmBYaDs/itc xoHw+cMEKft10OO+gmQ+FM53F/nKeD68ceZ7+XgYyesipAjALIIaT4q0FjAdCJqqHyOZj4DeP rVsN8NNZ7t31Dxwj98jZH8nCROeE5M5leJaT4q+E7JpAZQX9HpxMw61p8Ll/BYYdg95d5wFTy 98JKaafmso8g5IhB/9E+RJtLhw2sqF08oLp5XLfCRcrh2mZLwErl35gk/h53UfsOn8ZeRbjrQ 6q8lgtKVxJjOriYpiNZplrCZ6FatZtVzNZbM6NW9nM3nBxmrUXKagFhxpqWa92sLbqpD40vQZ j0rvogGXoR4F05gqUFEZUZqsnKlL1zuMnGDcbbWbeaEezaNpFSheGERtlpU38Fl7TWbxuU7JQ PurZitsRlFWCBlcmmAyyFITiqbrSnqLcbqmp18870mnkrCkW/iQIMUhqR8jFRjtlr/tpj7AGz Q/JECBfHx8lP4ZvDXNZPtfH0BBNFIFKPKlLv4mi+3v1AExECYG0tqdUiAb908KyUHn0l3Plmp HtYE3j7yd2JaUMLZ8UP8yITEHCw3T9Hsa7q9/YF/YqE84QLkjt6+5syvgFaPeEqvHXLcvjBwk elpr8aGH2Tc85lgyqcIxty34xPF97TqH+/1o8F1qsHV92Dt/48oNrb82ZW89bd+/juLHHX6JM +P1jcXhJVtiV1frd6oIwchpInCrwP0BpwsE0/sDAAA=
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-22.tower-285.messagelabs.com!1554213194!5663081!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.33.64.93]
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 16589 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2019 13:53:16 -0000
Received: from us-west-2b.mta.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.33.64.93) by server-22.tower-285.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 2 Apr 2019 13:53:16 -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=kypdVarzsE+Jlvx36e053OmL2AH6nqAaNBcH9W3DKbQ=; b=T93cgoYO6oJSjIiZKEwcC7xzFPleGodeqT6AGC8J1QxzvsGe8b40h3/i7UHN7WqHH4CUMcF2vNClzKv/aT61K5zz6M2iP7ihhDDnQsVq4S7MTC4vxHAkhGTYDuWGqqS9ttYmotn+4qChg8eKaMw6XNEs8Zy4YgMw1RuRvsoI1VM=
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (52.135.146.159) by AM0PR03MB5924.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.29.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.15; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 13:53:12 +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 13:53:12 +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 8349 (was: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022)
Thread-Index: AdTpW2iLlm1nfHS0SZq0IWkeRjQi6A==
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 13:53:11 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR03MB3828CD6E93236076142079109D560@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: e9057fc5-3c50-4d80-ebf0-08d6b7728be1
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:AM0PR03MB5924;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR03MB5924:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR03MB5924BD5FE7152F724318F8E99D560@AM0PR03MB5924.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0995196AA2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(136003)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(53754006)(51874003)(199004)(189003)(105586002)(106356001)(26005)(25786009)(6116002)(81166006)(97736004)(6306002)(9686003)(476003)(236005)(8936002)(54906003)(86362001)(74316002)(256004)(55016002)(71200400001)(99286004)(66066001)(790700001)(3846002)(6506007)(5660300002)(33656002)(110136005)(53546011)(316002)(54896002)(71190400001)(4326008)(53936002)(68736007)(8676002)(72206003)(2906002)(14454004)(186003)(6436002)(7696005)(478600001)(81156014)(7736002)(2501003)(102836004)(486006)(52536014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR03MB5924; H:AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX: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: 40Lfw4CqTX2LCFFB2Jhtct3w80oDq+CmPs/V1iWHfacG2cTpcoZ92fZy4+kS9V3Jd3uA8jEbyAdW+ldJ54C6klCsJEJnGOCNbFIA86uJ2ehTTka6Xf7hCKd5AoOd7dH4D4Dc8SPhjY3Sy6jcMlQyFNZpANu8Dq3/FQlQrhAZ3sB2+STzmzb2q6RoV2mCMSC74uJhkZ0YFMQQQzhFSCnQ08IdFrvdf4c6i9y4+peK3MPTcEwKiuC3dtwHAAV8l54fPjT9pUXhBZXhKGeSujVV64hagis2EA/JaiDQfTi4yc9XHWWDwPUwAtxHX+1NOJ/ijSgOYJPbHWjxs5qxvS5SX+mJFMGfY0dyElozRTcZuKjLdDBd9FbfQQSx2i1Khe5fp39BPHe1xjZX4SNRaJM+xwEJuxyjrTgkkxacuYM+LhI=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM0PR03MB3828CD6E93236076142079109D560AM0PR03MB3828eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e9057fc5-3c50-4d80-ebf0-08d6b7728be1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Apr 2019 13:53:11.9927 (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: AM0PR03MB5924
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/FUMFZVrWKsshGpOLphKZYJn5c8g>
Subject: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 (was: 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 13:53:24 -0000

Hi all,
I have noticed that 8022 has been obsoleted by RFC 8349. But it has exactly the same problem.

Regards,
Sasha

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

From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 3:57 PM
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>;
Subject: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022
Importance: High

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<mailto: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.
___________________________________________________________________________