Re: [Rift] [bess] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-00

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Mon, 15 March 2021 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
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 61EB83A1C1B; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 afLQGxtHsuue; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (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 508A83A1C1D; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id x7so7223997pfi.7; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BlNFbXy4ZdiCTGPrvQdf0QXKO7C298IGjLmSSaLDwbE=; b=mbrnO081l4iiZdcFnVyhHwkrAo47OmtuuuNu/CJ8jktJpOdulLdnh4dVwj2l7m7/hD a3uyGV3KC8w89kO0yvXBS9COMs30m+knkRZneGfd15EqjqPlganSlWzTrpOFURbS+gU2 /S4ANlr7YL+LwmA8UICkkf+DdthJMiuyijPbb6zffAWzY+0Uv8QskRsDXntiEw3lPwEb H3K4eGi9nxa5kCT3dGddT3TQ8/nizYwe9IV66hvP48m0lqAYFenn2HhRXwpUobVAv/Bl +ZAx/Ik1sNsZfyzskgl1MIl9HN6MbG2s4ScU+CxtxyugJLh9FCDzSF+l+v5E8WyJRiyX fmwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BlNFbXy4ZdiCTGPrvQdf0QXKO7C298IGjLmSSaLDwbE=; b=pa/ax35gQshiA0pU93CEBPeEEr5wye2TWpfVdrAvS88PuorZs12MdB+EAgsITku+S2 hVcM6nAo2a7s2SEp7zvsazyV0womS5hEJhw3hCIvDpMwq2WjURJrBjPJmXnvEGKE9hBa BSs1jJK9ctkjEKP5U9AdMly8orp2JcENn/g1WVGltp6+KVy5qdDNqNsZcHjstnIfb9Gm f5qO+jIoVCG+ueA2HX3A+pm6nuzKnBIv68OBXt06HBq+ohH5h9RI5RGO7a07tfqJY7hS FvQszsK9qiwyAu59yzX6hK/qUcOXBXqRt2Jb29SfCJYc7Be/YKJlkOHDoKi+MD0aNdad Rh6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533X9zj9knGlEQ9Gr0AY5lx2GQ6t9LYHniLcKCxyoSJaMyr4bFli 8g6S3jS1k0CiQvheDwDEBEjIpGPw54xJxUeeX+0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdMQRb/wqQ4/oz2eoEHtSxKdQOPSyLQvcYJvLIxFhcmXZtyoyHXQJyahXyuFItD4McauABQO2kIJecASk+F2k=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:7f86:0:b029:20a:a195:bb36 with SMTP id a128-20020a627f860000b029020aa195bb36mr1241604pfd.4.1615836487595; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV2L9JoEWUK4fVOOCBq8312WvOQJR+sNM=UU_TNbRSnW7w@mail.gmail.com> <AC084BCD-2619-44DF-8E60-B50D14492F5F@gmail.com> <ACE18B85-E641-483A-9141-56D725558268@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <ACE18B85-E641-483A-9141-56D725558268@juniper.net>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 15:27:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV0ZCrPQ25y5W-WTW3J3So6n=x91hRs21axem4LSshGQSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>
Cc: "EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Jordan Head <jhead@juniper.net>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dbbb7305bd983fb3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/qGTErVcz9TuiuekoCWeNtlfYEdE>
Subject: Re: [Rift] [bess] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-00
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: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 19:28:13 -0000

Understood.  Thanks Tony.

The draft is very detailed and well written.

Thanks

Gyan

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:29 AM Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net> wrote:

> As Jeff pointed out, the scope is very different. The design team is
> focused on standardizing a solution given things that have been for a bit
> in the wild to “auto-peer” BGP, a useful thing non-withstanding how
> contrary to the original BGP design goals it was 😉
>
>
>
> AUTO EVPN targets a different problem where auto-peering is kind of
> understood implicitly from the underlay protocol plus lots other things. It
> brings original L2 simplicity to L2 over L3 again. Based on RIFT (other
> protocols are an open question but there are a lot of things needed for
> that that RIFT already does natively) it provides a absolutely zero config
> plug-and-play underlay and overlay EVPN bring-up of devices plugged
> together to form an IP fabric (well, I’m lying, the top of fabric switches
> in RIFT still need the knob for knowing they’re top-of-fabric).
>
>
>
> The draft outlines the architecture pretty well, we have the missing
> algorithms figured out quite precisly by now and stuff works but we simply
> didn’t have time for this IETF to fill them in or include the type-5 IRB
> details either. Next rev …
>
>
>
> --- tony
>
>
>
> *From: *Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 14 March 2021 at 19:51
> *To: *Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>,
> "EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, "bess@ietf.org" <
> bess@ietf.org>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>, Jordan Head <jhead@juniper.net
> >
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] [Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-00
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> It doesn’t and has a very different purpose.
>
> BGP work in IDR is meant to facilitate bringing up BGP peering
> session(discovery/config/etc).
>
> RIFT work is specifically for fabrics that run RIFT as the underlay
> routing protocol and wish to use EVPN for overlay. Auto-evpn facilities
> bringing up BGP sessions with EVPN AFI/SAFI as well as auto deriving EVPN
> attributes, such as  EVIs,VRFs, IRB/SVIs and so forth.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2021, at 16:12, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> In IDR their is an BGP Auto config design team.
>
>
>
> Does this auto EVPN used by Rift separate effort from IDR DT below:
>
>
>
> 1. BGP Autoconf Design Team Report (15 mins)
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Uw8Yz8Ov5eX7PEcvbfAUiGCWHBYNdsMkmwG10bI0xeDOxYRGYhQD_vHcA0uGeQ$>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:06 AM Antoni Przygienda <prz=
> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Sandy, if you want to see it that way, yepp, you can think of one of the
> things AUTO EVPN does as “BGP peer auto-configuration”. This is however
> just a small part of the overall and really just kind of “necessary
> byproduct”, especially since the sessions to RR can go multi-hop so even
> with bgp single-hop discovery BGP couldn’t figure it out itself. (Yes,
> there was work done previously for RR autodiscovery in IGP AFAIR, I don’t
> think I ever saw it deployed).
>
>
>
> --- tony
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
> *Date: *Friday, 12 March 2021 at 05:01
> *To: *Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, Jordan Head <jhead@juniper.net>,
> Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>
> *Cc: *"rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re:[Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-00
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> Thank you for your response! It's interesting.
>
> So in some sense, the BGP auto discovery can be achieved by RIFT own way,
> in this situration, right?
>
> Please find more comments below with Sandy>.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sandy
>
> 原始邮件
>
> *发**件人:*AntoniPrzygienda
>
> *收件人:*张征00007940;Jordan Head;Wen Lin;
>
> *抄送人:*rift@ietf.org;bess@ietf.org;
>
> *日* *期* *:*2021年03月10日 23:45
>
> *主* *题* *:**Re: [Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-00*
>
> Hey Sandy, yes, all sessions come up automatically
>
>
>
> Yes, all the data is derived automatically just from the today’s RIFT
> database on the leaf or ToF (no key value necessary or any new TIEs, just
> topology info we have today already)
>
> Sandy> Most of the info is topology info, but some may not, such as AS
> number. But I agree with you, it can be a small option to be added in the
> existed TIE or a new TIE.
>
>
>
> There is _*NO*_ information about ToF in the leaves, e’thing is scaling
> just like RIFT does today
>
> Sandy> I have a question, If ToF is RR, does it need to establish BGP
> peering with leaf nodes?
>
>
>
> KV 😉 will be just optional for telemetry in case that’s desired & will
> flow northbound only so no change in scaling properties.
>
> Sandy> OK. I understand.
>
>
>
> In short:
>
>
>
> RR elects itself RR or not in the plane (section 6.3.2.1) and based on
> that  assumes a special RR loopback with last byte representing its
> preference
>
>
>
> X::[pref]
>
>
>
> Every leaf tries to connect to
>
>
>
> X::1
>
> X::2
>
> X::3
>
>
>
> Which they know are RRs (# of RRs doesn’t matter, just pick a reasonable
> constant)
>
>
>
> Each leaf elects own loopback in a well known range
>
> Sandy> It's a reasonable design. For multiple RIFT instances, if multiple
> EVPN overlays can be built? Will they use the same well know range loopback
> address?
>
>
>
> Y/64 :: something
>
>
>
> On each RR any connection attempt from Y/64:: something is accepted
> (pretty much all mature implemenations today support that). If you want to
> be fastidious you could actually on the ToF that is RR (since it sees all
> node N-TIEs) even specify each leaf as allowed peer
>
> Sandy> Do you mean the RR (ToF) is optional, leaf nodes can build BGP
> peering straightly?
>
>
>
> All took a bit to figure out and my first input to the idea when brought
> to me was “well, of course it’s impossible to ZTP EVPN, even with RIFT” 😉
> But, with enough grey matter grease it actually works pretty well from all
> we see …
>
>
>
> It will all become more concrete when we flesh the algorithm appendix
> albeit the description today already gives a pretty good idea but without
> standardized algorithms for the distributed elections interoperability
> cannot be guaranteed …
>
> Sandy> Sound great. Looking forward to looking at it.
>
>
>
> --- tony
>
>
>
> *From: *"zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 10 March 2021 at 16:31
> *To: *Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, Jordan Head <jhead@juniper.net>,
> Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>
> *Cc: *"rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-00
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Tony, co-author,
>
> Thank for your presentation in RIFT and BESS WG.
>
> I have question about the intent of this draft, before I read more on the
> detail. :-P
>
> From the draft, seems like the leaf node will build BGP connection
> automatically, and exchange the necessary MAC/IP through EVPN
> advertisement.
>
> But does the info on leaf for BGP building (AS, router-id, etc.) derived
> from the leaf node itself? If it is, the BGP auto discovery function is
> included in (That is also the confusion from BESS WG).
>
> If the info for BGP building on leaf comes from the TOF nodes (RR), then
> it has no relationship with BGP auto discovery, IMO necessary sourcebound
> KVs are needed. But I am not sure because I have not seen explicit
> description in the draft.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Uw8Yz8Ov5eX7PEcvbfAUiGCWHBYNdsMkmwG10bI0xeDOxYRGYhQD_vHQ83tH2g$>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.verizon.com/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Uw8Yz8Ov5eX7PEcvbfAUiGCWHBYNdsMkmwG10bI0xeDOxYRGYhQD_vFie_t5WA$>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g>
> *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD