Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-14.txt---with HyperLink Correction

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 27 July 2021 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EA03A0A88; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.348
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 mzvWeNzQPBP8; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 79EF33A0A8D; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.119.54;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Aijun Wang'" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, <pce@ietf.org>
Cc: "'idr-chairs'" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "'pce-chairs'" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <074701d782b7$b0d19430$1274bc90$@tsinghua.org.cn>
In-Reply-To: <074701d782b7$b0d19430$1274bc90$@tsinghua.org.cn>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:58:10 -0400
Message-ID: <002d01d78332$7d7df850$7879e8f0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01D78310.F6730F10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGxQOSLCGDTVg9cnNOeUKjAO7FkS6uj3bdQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/1nPOE_rL_nFr-icBkeyTuYavMzM>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-14.txt---with HyperLink Correction
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:58:31 -0000

Aijun: 

 

Thank you for your quick response.  

 

I¡¯ve answered questions below.  Would you let me know when you update your
draft?  I¡¯ll re-read the sections that changed and make additional
suggestions.  If you think it would be useful to add 2 (or more) next hops
per EPR, please let me know. 

 

I¡¯m glad to keep reviewing your changes. 

 

Cheers, Sue 

 

From: Aijun Wang [mailto:wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 3:19 AM
To: 'Susan Hares'; pce@ietf.org
Cc: 'idr-chairs'; 'pce-chairs'
Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-14.txt---with
HyperLink Correction

 

Hi, Susan and all:

 

Update one hyperlink on the contents, please refer to this mail for comments
responses.

 

From: pce-bounces@ietf.org <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:04 PM
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>om>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: 'idr-chairs' <idr-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; 'pce-chairs' <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-14.txt

 

Hi, Susan:

 

Thanks for your reviews, let me first address your current questions and
wait for the further discussions on the overall solution.

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: pce-bounces@ietf.org <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:19 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: 'idr-chairs' <idr-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; 'pce-chairs' <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-14.txt

 

Greetings: 

 

Thank you for your work on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-14.txt.


This comment should be consider feedback from me as a WG member of IDR and
PCE.  I have posted this information also on the  

 

This draft takes a step toward auto-configuration of BGP peers.  IDR has
created a set of requirements for BGP auto-configuration for Data Centers
at: 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations/

[WAJ] Yes, I have also reviewed this document and attended some discussions
on it. The autoconf document tries to build the BGP from scratch without 3rd
party(for example, PCE) assistance. It considers mainly the direct connected
BGP peer setup process automatically and does not involve the prefix
advertisement and explicit route setup. 

I think the aim of these two drafts is different but we can refer to some
designed considerations from it.

 

[Sue] You have understood that the bgp auto-configuration works on peer
set-up. 

          I simply wanted you to know that your PCE work linked that that
work in BGP. 

 

I¡¯ve put a copy of these comments at: 

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/pce-pcep-extension-native-ip%20Hares%20c
omments

 

 

Cheers, Sue 

 

Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-14

=================================================

Overview of errors 

1) section 6 description of BGP routers needs clarification 

(sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3) for RR and RR Clients 

[WAJ] Please see the replies inline below.

 

2) BGP Session Establish Procedures ¨C are these restrict to RR and RR
Clients?  

[WAJ] Yes. The BGP session is established between RR and its clients in
large network. It can also be established between two nodes directly.(as
described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8821#section-3)

 

The point ¨Cto-point (P2P) Peering was clear in RFC8821. 

[Sue] It would be useful to revise the draft to clearly define this is a
single AS,

RR location, and RR client locations. 

 

3) Explicit routes [section 6.2] ¨C Is ECMP support as well as 1 prefix/1
next Hop?  

[WAJ] Yes, ECMP is supported. PCE needs to send two EPR(Explicit Peer Route)
objects, with the same ¡°Destination Adress¡± and ¡°Route Priority¡±, but
different ¡°Next Hop Address¡±

[Sue] ¨C it is possible to be more effective in the EPR by including 2 (or
more)

Next Hops.  Have you consider this choice in PCE? 

 

4) IPv4/IPv6 restrictions [section 6.3] ¨C are you restricting the peer
session or the AFI/SAFI supported by the Peer session? 

[WAJ] AFI/SAFI supported by the peer session.

[Sue] Again ¨C it would be helpful to clearly state AFI/SAFI. 

 

5) Sections 7, 9, and 10 ¨C may need to change based on your answers to
questions 1-4? 

 

Detailed questions 

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

1. Section 6 ¨C sub sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. 

 

Problem: 

The text that describe the BGP peers and the diagram needs clarification on
the BGP peering between BGP peers:  R1, R7, and R3. If R1 and R7 are Route
Reflector clients (RR clients) are attached to the R3 then it is important
to indicate this point. 

[WAJ] Yes, R1 and R7 is RR clients.

[Sue] Please make this fact clear in your next revision. 

 

If you are using classic route reflection, then R1, R3 and R7 would need to
be in the same Autonomous system. 

[WAJ] Yes, certainly.

[Sue] Please make that clear in your document. 

 

The RR (R3) determines what routes are sent to the RR clients.  

 

This problem impacts the text in section 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 

 

2.) Text change for Section 6.1 ¨C if R1 and R7 are RR clients. 

 

Here¡¯s a change if R1 and R7 are Router Reflector Clients.  

 

Current text: /

   The PCInitiate message should be sent to PCC which acts as BGP router

  and route reflector(RR).  In the example in Figure 1, it should be

   sent to R1(M1), R3(M2 & M3) and R7(M4), when R3 acts as RR./

 

Improved text: /

   The PCInitiate message should be sent to PCC which acts as 

    BGP router reflector or a route reflector client. In the 

   example in Figure 1, it should be

   sent to the route reflector clients R1(M1) and R7 (M4), and 

  the route reflector R3 (M1 or M4).    /

[WAJ] Has updated the draft with the following contents(almost same as your
suggestions):

The PCInitiate message should be sent to PCC which acts as BGP router and/or
route reflector (RR). In the example in Figure 1, it should be sent to route
reflector clients R1(M1) and R7(M4), and the route reflector R3(M2 & M3)
when R3 acts as RR. PCInitiate message creates an auto-configuration
function for these BGP peers providing the indicated Peer AS and the
Local/Peer IP Address.

[Sue] Thank you.  Did you submit your updated draft? 

 

3) Section 6.1 ¨C BGP Session Establishment Procedure 

Question: Does the PCEInitiate (message and report) require the RR and RR
client structure? 

[WAJ] No. not necessary.  The BGP session setup procedures is same between
RR and its clients.

[Sue]: If you use the PCEInitiate message with another structure, it would
be useful

To include an example in your document of multiple peers. 

 

If so, the PCInitiate should have a parameter indicate what type of BGP peer
(RR or RR client) each receiving BGP peer should be.   

 

4) Section 6.2 ¨C Explicit Route Establishment Procedure 

 

Problem: It is unclear what the impact to the routing system of the setting
of explicit route.  

 

Basic Details: (1 Route with 1 Next Hop)

If R1 and R7 are RR clients and the Explicit route operates as static route
installed by the PCIntiate, then BGP peer will reflected these static routes
R3. 

[WAJ] No, the explicit route is only installed on the aimed PCC nodes and
such information will not be advertised via the BGP session between RR and
its clients.

[R1 (explicit route [static route]) ¨¤ R3] 

[R1 (explicit route [static route]) ¨¤ R7] [note my error]  

 

                [Sue] If a route is installed in the RR clients, why is it
not updated to the BGP

               Peer web (R1-RR-R7). I thought the purpose of adding it to
the RR client. 

                If it is not the purpose, why is this included in the BGP
section? 

                              

 

Setting or clearing the Explicit route seem to map to a setting/clear a
static route on the node.  If this is true, then this section needs to be
rework to clear describe the process. 

[WAJ] Yes, it is similar with the static route on the node. The purpose of
these explicit routes are to influence the final recursive forwarding path
for prefixes advertised by BGP peer.

 

[Sue] Then is the purpose to send it from 1 RR client (for example R1), and 

 Have it redistribute to R3 (RR) and R7 (RR client). 

 

Your setting the route on the pathway hop by hop is similar to
netconf/restconf setting routes in a pathway.   

[WAJ] Yes, it is similar.

[Sue] Thank you.  At least I got one detail correct [smile]. 

 

ECMP Details: (1 Route with multiple Next Hop) 

If the explicit route is a ECMP route with multiple next hop paths, the next
hop for a route installed in could be R5 or R2. 

[WAJ] Yes. For ECMP routes, the PCE needs to send two EPR objects to PCC(in
Figure2, on R1), with the ¡°Destination Address¡± are both set to R7, but
the ¡°Nexthop Address¡± is set differently(for example, R2, R5 as you
mentioned.).  The ¡°Route Priority¡± field in EPR object should also be the
same.

[Sue] Thank  you for the explanation.  Do you think it is useful to allow 2
Next-Hops 

 In the same EPR object. 

 

If ECMP is allowed, then you need to decide if:

a) adding this route allows the route to be installed if only some of the
next hops are valid (for example R5 is valid, but R2 is not)

b) delete routing allows the route to be deleted if both next hops were not
installed. 

[WAJ]  Adding the description ¡°The PCC should verify that the next hop
address is reachable.¡±  before the sentence ¡°Upon the error occurs, the
PCC SHOULD send the corresponding error via PCErr message, with an error
information¡­ ¡­¡£

[Sue]:  This is a wonderful addition. 

 

5) Section 6.3 

 

Problem:  You do not clear indicate the status of BGP peer routers. 

 

If R1 and R7 are BGP route reflector clients, then R1 and R7 will send the
route to R3 which will reflect the route to other RR clients (if policy
allows). 

[WAJ] The propagation of BGP prefixes is the same as the traditional BGP
procedures. The ¡°Peer Address¡± in PPA objects indicates which peer the
prefixes will be sent to.

[Sue] If you have trio of 2 RR clients and RR, then simply indicate you
follow RR-RRclient rules. 

 

6.) Section 6.3 

Problem:  It is unclear why there is a restriction for IPv4 prefix to be
sent only via a IPv4 BGP section, and the IPv6 prefix only via a IPV6
section. 

 

Details: I think the author is trying to describe the peers support for a
particular set of AFI/SAFIS for NLRI sent rather than the peering.  However,
it is unclear. 

[WAJ] What we want to express is that the IPv4 BGP Peer session will
advertise/receive only IPv4 prefixes(AFI/SAFI is 1/1 ), and IPv6 BGP Peer
session will advertise/receive IPv6 prefixes(AFI/SAFI is 2/1).

                 [Sue]: Why did you make this restriction?  Is it from PCE
requirements? 

 

7.) Sections 7.2 and 7.3 

All of these issues on the intent of the protocol need to be answered before
I can provide additional feedback on the PCEP objects.  

 

The initial shape of the PCE discussion are reasonable, but working through
the details requires clarity in sections 6.1 to 6.3.  For example, support
for ECMP in the explicit routes may cause sections 7.3 and 7.4 to be
rewritten. 

 

8.) Section 9 ¨C 

The error handling must consider the RR to RR client distribution of routes.


[WAJ] The route distribution process between the RR and RR clients is
unchanged.

 

Also, if one PCE overwrites another multiple route are sent from a RR client
to the RR.  The policy in the RR must be set-up to handle errors. 

[WAJ] The information from EPR object is not advertised by the RR client
back to the RR.

[Sue] What prevents the EPR object from being sent to the RR via BGP. 

Is the EPR object not installed in the BGP RIBs to be sent? 

I think I am missing something simple here. 

 

This section needs a bit of rethinking. 

 

8.) Section 10 - BGP Considerations -  

The content of the BGP consideration sections seems reasonable, but it
should be reviewed again after all the remainder of the document has been
clarified. 

[WAJ] Wish to receive your more through considerations for the current
solution.            

   

[Sue] Thank you for the discussion.  Could you provide updates