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
- [Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-00 zhang.zheng
- Re: [Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-… Antoni Przygienda
- Re: [Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-… zhang.zheng
- Re: [Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-… Antoni Przygienda
- Re: [Rift] [bess] comments on draft-head-rift-aut… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Rift] [bess] comments on draft-head-rift-aut… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Rift] [bess] comments on draft-head-rift-aut… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Rift] [bess] comments on draft-head-rift-aut… Antoni Przygienda
- Re: [Rift] [bess] comments on draft-head-rift-aut… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Rift] comments on draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-… zhang.zheng