Re: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 20 June 2017 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D746B131BB6; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 4OVdT6y4HtVt; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87AD9131A74; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3762; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497973236; x=1499182836; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=57ZayF0pdhGiZIL1XAt897Hcf97LXUJk4ZAq8uWRZjY=; b=HeOdEPUhvHW0bpgQCEDyZJ9dVICXKcxPJs+P2BhUibZX6h0UZAQhnTAy ZtqgElmVmWMM0e+/Gt+CmiWV6xdjVwJg0LkQ3hfz0MXCAkkPJIwzgrX5T xO2zzg0q2VOSkw4CwtnOG0qytzCPM+na7vdxMrtsIwnJXVrKXxUW7yrqr o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAgCqQUlZ/5BdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1iBbweDZJwYmAmGJAIagkpCFQECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkBBSMREzI?= =?us-ascii?q?QAgEIDgoCAiYCAgIwFRACBAENBYosrAKCJoM+iBwBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEdgQuKZYRpgxKCYQEEnmECk2CSDpUMATUigQp0FYdXAXaITIENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,364,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="441055692"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jun 2017 15:40:29 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5KFeTWl025689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:40:29 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:40:28 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:40:28 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
CC: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "OSPF WG List" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
Thread-Topic: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
Thread-Index: AQHS6Syo68r6z3GylU2z1PR9VYBctaItArCAgAENr4CAAAJjAIAACW0A///IiAA=
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:40:28 +0000
Message-ID: <D56EB8CF.B5E9E%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D5436DE8.AF5B7%acee@cisco.com> <38DEB571-2918-4464-B18A-71B24221772F@gmail.com> <47325462-2430-4197-AA8D-D3FEF74A834D@gmail.com> <D5438DD9.298FE6%rrahman@cisco.com> <20170619185715.GB22146@pfrc.org> <0578CD07-8678-4FF2-939F-0EF6F68CE34A@gmail.com> <20170620141639.GA22550@pfrc.org> <d4d161f4a91d4a479ed71affca9170c6@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20170620145856.GC22550@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170620145856.GC22550@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3AFF546F4CA311429CCBEC7C6E4312F0@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/CN2zuCzz8CDLfFMkC7KeFK7EYd8>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:44:51 -0000

Hi Jeff, 

On 6/20/17, 10:58 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:

>Les,
>
>On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:25:12PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>> > Different protocols have different survivability requirements.  An
>>IGP may
>> > very well want sub-second timers, potentially for repair behaviors.
>>BGP may
>> > want fast failover, but may be fine with second level granularity.
>>This is
>> > particularly true since the cost of too aggressively flapping BGP is
>>of
>> > significantly greater impact to the network and the router.
>> > 
>> [Les:] The real issues here are false failures and proper use of
>>dampening. No protocol - not even an IGP - wants to flap unnecessarily.
>>If timers are set so aggressively that false failures are reported this
>>is BAD.
>> Even worse is failure to dampen so that we get multiple false failures
>>in a short period of time.
>> 
>> Arguing that the right way to solve this problem is to increase the
>>number of sessions using different timer granularity seems likely to
>>make any problems worse as you have now increased the number of BFD
>>sessions with the associated costs.
>
>I'm mildly amused you seem to think I'm not considering the cost of
>additional sessions in the scaling matrix. :-)
>
>I do think you're conflating the survivability requirements vs. timer
>granularity.  However, I agree that the most commonly deployed form is to
>go
>for single session with the most stable aggressive timer.
>
>Again, the reason I raise this is there has been discussion regarding
>behavior for different client timing requirements.  There are a few
>options
>for how this is likely to play out in terms of BFD protocol
>implementation.
>However, configuration and operational models tend to evolve much more
>slowly.  (And I certainly don't need to tell you that.)  Thus, I'm
>prodding
>at this space a bit to attempt to do some future proofing.
>
>As we noted earlier in thread, this likely at least encourages
>configuration
>to be multi-instanced, even if the session instantiation is not currently.
>Key changes aren't something we can readily do, so getting that part right
>early is necessary.
>
>The likely impact on current IGP module BFD configuration may be a later
>augmentation.  Thus, as long as the likely implications are understood,
>there may be no further action needed at this time.  Determining that is
>partially what this thread is attempting to shake out.

In the IGPs, we have a separate BFD container in the interface
configuration. Currently, it only contains the a boolean. This could
easily be augmented to reference the appropriate construct in the BFD
model. 

Thanks,
Acee 


>
>-- Jeff