Re: [Rift] [RIFT] spine-tof links break => spine-leaf adjacencies go down?

Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com> Thu, 23 April 2020 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <brunorijsman@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 A69DD3A1420 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 kHCG5c5c4-bV for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2b]) (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 F2B0D3A141D for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com with SMTP id w188so785797vkf.0 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=A6rn1Ew5AcDg7xxANk6Xm8dMZs39UGiu4HMyQYhgmK8=; b=FLccUuPt//2VUmxr1uYROFjI5leCf/BcCT7FN1hCIdTdWskgJkocXp8mmFtLFPC3oZ b/nbRgg3f9VDhZ93MN7UpRZUAV3vMdc/IzK9wx+FrYWmk3P9pnz/DNpT0lyz1QFPG0g7 wTYN7mkBwWW7pXiM6GA7Wwt+pw4JieWIzbLWabChqBlnbRKLo+v+O+zWBbRUwViZG8DH SUcPnw6mhkBeT/xKqZ0XScNzDdn1pxMOp4CCKWsVtQHCUkySQMGsfS7bAmFsg3J3r9KE /kcYksrzRzKmlNH4VZcJgAtfOC7wNr9nX2kJkGNzVrhgzAimmzvysnEsai9LwDoTXRUf jJkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=A6rn1Ew5AcDg7xxANk6Xm8dMZs39UGiu4HMyQYhgmK8=; b=uIUbURWMAJxVXooywKt60vk0u7q36GWX8x8Bu6tVw5er0wn4aDH+GCBbeIhapHicy2 39SlzHenOBYHUoqxJynjo+htMcj3QE9wbYd0cpj9rgBTMwGaEpR5n0a+YNIsTgrSuQp8 GRE+YAz89HQqucUlnShkngXonvzNZ+9/dtfE1nhvOLUwyqK94iKTwcJIZC10kX3MQBSF vOgvxDRe6bskVNSxO1EC9TV5AQZ7YsZp0H5g8mYFVpgl3eLRKKhwYJ5kdHwQp1w4+/us lkdT8zjORln4/+vMC923VbJsldYIEgZDYVq7ZWyesteWIYcAKf6pufHUPH+W3PynID6Z LLLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuapnpqsVo1vIOHy0HFNYUv5igM3lE6hhy8d/yu6fkBBLPF/zP3D Kzh6c4ZFTfw/N+5u/n3j+io=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJucHFam0wBamTSj5KnyLLSfyEDVfvNKwXWbIYFiA/2gB+r0+v3caOMeuSnM7bYdx5L88uwYQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9ac7:: with SMTP id c190mr5501824vke.39.1587677789735; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.30.24] ([181.174.102.214]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k124sm1051199vkb.40.2020.04.23.14.36.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <5D3DCA2D-F5E8-4B11-A27E-188ADFA043C8@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EED51E21-32BE-4610-AA80-E60BBF39D225"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 15:36:25 -0600
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hO1zcsCebDjvHKgO8vdHtwJJCY2C4vUWBVC9xsjBGYvWg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>, Tommaso Caiazzi <tommasocaiazzi@gmail.com>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Mariano Scazzariello <mscazzariello@os.uniroma3.it>, Leonardo Alberro Zimmermann <lalberro@fing.edu.uy>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
References: <5e909790.1c69fb81.e9d94.cb7e@mx.google.com> <d72ecfbd-3fe0-4eb7-94e9-dbecd0b8610f@Spark> <EC67D4C2-CEFF-46C9-866F-D0F32547CC64@gmail.com> <CA+wi2hO1zcsCebDjvHKgO8vdHtwJJCY2C4vUWBVC9xsjBGYvWg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/zGLnispMv630LWq0ALRgGs7dLJI>
Subject: Re: [Rift] [RIFT] spine-tof links break => spine-leaf adjacencies go down?
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: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 21:36:34 -0000

Gotcha.

Thanks for confirming.

PS: It turned out that the issue we were seeing was caused by the fact that Travis CI/CD *still* does not support IPv6 in this day and age.

> On Apr 23, 2020, at 3:27 PM, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Absolutely intendend and expected behavior ;-) You can't figure out topology from spine down basically without a ToF. ToFs are the only source of truth where north is and if that isn't around no'one knows which way is up ... 
> 
> It's actually easy to put some code in that watches for the condition on a node & complains that there are no valid offers. 
> 
> Alternative would be to "store" offers and use them even if a node went away. Think through that, it's impossible to converge the protocol correctly then without having something like flooding of offers with seqnr# and so on ... 
> 
> --- tony 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:13 AM Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com <mailto:brunorijsman@gmail.com>> wrote:
> While testing negative disaggregation with Mariano, I discovered an "interesting" behavior in RIFT and I would like to check whether this behavior is expected or not. I am not saying the behavior is wrong, I was just surprised to see it and wanted to check whether this was intended when the protocol was designed.
> 
> Consider the following topology:
> 
>  TOF1     TOF2
>    \       /
>     \     /
>      \   /
>      SPINE
>      /   \
>     /     \
>    /       \
>  LEAF1  LEAF2
> 
> All adjacencies are 3way.
> 
> The TOFs have top-of-fabric level 24.
> 
> The leaves have level 0.
> 
> The spine uses ZTP to derive a level, so it ends up with level 23.
> 
> Now we break all links between the spine and its TOFs:
> 
>  TOF1     TOF2
>    \       /
>     X     X   <<< These adj go down (as expected)
>      \   /
>      SPINE
>      /   \
>     /     \   <<< Surprise: these adj also go down
>    /       \
>  LEAF1  LEAF2
> 
> At this point the spine node does not have any Valid Offered Levels (VOLs) because (see [1]):
> (1) The levels from the TOFs are not valid because the adjacencies are down
> (2) The levels from leaves are never accepted as valid offers
> 
> Hence, the derived level for the spine becomes "undefined".
> 
> Once the level of the spine becomes undefined, it stops accepting LIE messages from the leaves because a node whose level is undefined never accepts LIEs (see [2] below).
> 
> Since the spine stops accepting LIEs from the leaves, the old LIEs time out and the adjacencies go down.
> 
> My question is: it is normal and expected that breaking the links from the spine to the TOFs *also* causes the adjacencies between th spine and the leaves to go down?
> 
> [1] On page [86] of draft-11 it says:
> 
>  Valid Offered Level (VOL): A neighbor’s level received on a valid
>  LIE (i.e. passing all checks for adjacency formation while
>  disregarding all clauses involving level values) persisting for
>  the duration of the holdtime interval on the LIE. Observe that
>  offers from nodes offering level value of 0 do not constitute VOLs
>  (since no valid DERIVED_LEVEL can be obtained from those and
>  consequently ‘not_a_ztp_offer‘ MUST be ignored). Offers from LIEs
>  with ‘not_a_ztp_offer‘ being true are not VOLs either. If a node
>  maintains parallel adjacencies to the neighbor, VOL on each
>  adjacency is considered as equivalent, i.e. the newest VOL from
>  any such adjacency updates the VOL received from the same node.
> 
> [2] On page [45] of draft -11 it says:
> 
>  4. PROCESS_LIE:
>  1. if lie has wrong major version OR our own system ID or
>  invalid system ID then CLEANUP else
>  2. if lie has non matching MTUs then CLEANUP, PUSH
>  UpdateZTPOffer, PUSH MTUMismatch else
>  3. if PoD rules do not allow adjacency forming then CLEANUP,
>  PUSH PODMismatch, PUSH MTUMismatch else
>  4. if lie has undefined level OR my level is undefined OR this
>  node is leaf and remote level lower than HAT OR (lie’s level
>  is not leaf AND its difference is more than one from my
>  level) then CLEANUP, PUSH UpdateZTPOffer, PUSH
>  UnacceptableHeader else
>