Re: [Rift] Ipv4 and ipv6 cooperating in rift

<xu.benchong@zte.com.cn> Wed, 10 July 2019 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C263120125 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 01:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 QExk3rSEJQxL for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 01:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 B23E11200FD for <rift@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 01:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id A1C41BFCC911BD21C6D3; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:58:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 8B3315D6C6C8D056A6E7; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:58:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x6A8uCrt045079; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:56:12 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xu.benchong@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:56:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:56:12 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95d25a82ce0d5a8b8
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201907101656125835263@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR05MB3279E72D3736A834BB036C9CACF10@MWHPR05MB3279.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: 201907092008143097563@zte.com.cn, MWHPR05MB3279E72D3736A834BB036C9CACF10@MWHPR05MB3279.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>
To: <prz@juniper.net>
Cc: <zzhang@juniper.net>, <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, <rift@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn x6A8uCrt045079
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/Tl6ai1C7leq7mzawYaa4z69mpgU>
Subject: Re: [Rift] =?utf-8?q?Ipv4_and_ipv6_cooperating_in_rift?=
X-BeenThere: rift@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Routing in Fat Trees <rift.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rift/>
List-Post: <mailto:rift@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:58:52 -0000

Tony, thank you for your reply

Can it be understood that after the ND is enabled, the v6 address needs to be used to build neighbor? In this case, the rift packet of the v4 header is not allowed to be sent and received, and both v4 and v6 routes have a v6 GW.











原始邮件



发件人:AntoniPrzygienda <prz@juniper.net>
收件人:徐本崇10065053;Jeffrey (Zhaohui)Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>;张征00007940;rift@ietf.org <rift@ietf.org>rg>;
日 期 :2019年07月10日 00:09
主 题 :Re: [Rift] Ipv4 and ipv6 cooperating in rift



Hey Benchong, cc:'ing list, good questions obviously that pop out on implementation   
 

 
sending LIE only with v4 will not give you a v6 address to send to (since the LIE source address gives the gateway for the AF, that's why we send LIE per AF) so you won't have a v6 GW address to send TIEs to ;-)

yes, every interface is independent. Observe that v6 support implies v4 as the spec says (since you can FW v4 without a v4 GW if you have a v6 gateway). However, if one side sends v6 only and the other side only v4 they'll never go 3-way since they won't  be able to receive. We just added a sentence to the spec saying that if you don't send an AF LIE you MUST NOT receive the same AF LIE since we found that loose end in Bruno's implementation when testing security envelopes.  It will be in -07



 <t>All RIFT routers MUST support IPv4 forwarding and MAY support IPv6
 forwarding. A three way adjacency over IPv6 addresses implies support
 for IPv4 forwarding. A node that does not process received IPv6 LIEs
    MUST NOT originate IPv6 LIEs.
 </t> 
 
IPv6/IPv4 prefix can be mixed in Prefix TIEs. Prefix TIEs do NOT care which interface/AF they are sent over. 


how you build forwarding table and which gateways you use is implemenation dependent but yes, you got the flavor. though your assumption of "Ipv6 destination with ipv4 nexthop" is optimistic. every silicon does v4 so v6 can imply v4, implying v4 fwd'ing  allows v6 forwarding fails on good amount of silicon. But again, those are all implementation knobs, spec only says "v6 implies v4" which means "you better fwd. v4 over v6 nexthops if you see v6 LIEs only"


Observe that node TIEs are _not_ carrying the supported AFs on each interface since I think it would lead to undesirable attempts to deploy (some links can do v6) topologies which defeat the purpose of ZTP/simplicity of RIFT. v6 implies v4, if someone  wants to fwd' v6 over a fabric where certain links are v4 computations get really weird and operationally such a thing is probably a nightmare anyway. And getting v6 working is trivial, just flip on ND and you're in business (at least control plane wise ;-)
 

 The spec is noit giving implementation advice, it just specifies behavior. In case of doubt looks @ Bruno';s open source. Bruno implemented the whole LIE without ever talking to me and it interop'ed day one without problems. 
 

 When you're ready with your implementation to interop, Bruno's code has nice framework you can plug in against open source & Juniper implementation easily 
 

 --- tony 
 


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

From: xu.benchong@zte.com.cn <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>
 Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:08 AM
 To: Antoni Przygienda; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
 Subject: [Rift] Ipv4 and ipv6 cooperating in rift  





Hi 


I have some questions about ipv4 and ipv6 cooperating in rift.


Ip head of the rift packet can be V4 or V6, and the prefix in TIE also suport V4 or v6. 


Can it support the following situations:


 


1、A rift interface which send LIE with ipv4 head receiving LIE with IPv6 head;


A rift interface which send LIE with ipv6 head receiving LIE with IPv4 head;


Can they build 3-Way neighbor?


 


2、Some interfaces in a rift instance send ipv4 head packets, and others in the same instance send ipv6 head packets;


 


3、Ipv4 head TIE packet fill ipv6 prefix;


   Ipv6 head TIE packet fill ipv4 prefix;(RIFT-06 5.2.2: All RIFT routers MUST support IPv4 forwarding and MAY support IPv6


   forwarding.  A three way adjacency over IPv6 addresses implies


   support for IPv4 forwarding.)


 


4、In rib table of the rift:


   Ipv4 destination with ipv6 nexthop;


   Ipv6 destination with ipv4 nexthop; 


   Ipv4 destination with both ipv4 nexthop and ipv6 nexthop;


   Ipv6 destination with both ipv4 nexthop and ipv6 nexthop;


   


5、The ip head type(v4 or v6) can be configured in rift interface or instance.



 


It will be better if there are clear instructions in rift protocol.


 


Thanks!


Benchong