Re: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 19 June 2017 22:10 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 62A16129329; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 4NAeNl0p9HEO; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 522EB1200CF; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8852; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497910246; x=1499119846; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=3yQZcxOEQct6B1g//j+QsxFvSjhpGr5d8B1PxqIsB9c=; b=MLRpJZ+bI0XGLuk2xBrDDA48sI6IHPC5Ti4TmCIwQoAhQhD4YFu86X2J Zq9Pf56xPHZgIy54Whyutzue0iAlKfPYp8sz/0LZGX9MPFHOlm/BvKYDG wy1SPQXP1350IgPjR92ayZRhM2c4FmI0Ijm0vLdOFaTFME/nDObJt5Ywg c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DqAADCSkhZ/5tdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1iBbweDZIoZkXyIK41MghGGJAIagj8/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRg?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAyMRRRACAQgOAwMBAgECAiMDAgICHxEUAQgIAgQBDQWKFAMVrWqCJoc1D?= =?us-ascii?q?YQWAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYELhzeCF4EMgleCEiaCbIJhAQSeIzs?= =?us-ascii?q?CjnaEZ5INi1iJMAEfOIEKdBVJhQ0cgWUBdohCgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,363,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="439813834"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jun 2017 22:10:45 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5JMAi6N027442 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:10:45 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:10:44 -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; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:10:44 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
CC: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
Thread-Topic: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
Thread-Index: AQHS6Syo68r6z3GylU2z1PR9VYBctaIsv2uA
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:10:43 +0000
Message-ID: <D56DC1C7.B5A8F%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>
In-Reply-To: <20170619185715.GB22146@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: <82487D7558C7FD47B2FF4A9204D1E925@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/LJgt5vAT4Yv3LsH3nckg_RzPhbI>
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:10:49 -0000

Hi Jeff, 

I don’t really feel there is a strong requirement to support different
timers values per protocol even though several implementations allow
different protocol specific values to be configured (with varying
behaviors). 

If there were such a requirement, I would think it would be better
satisfied by extending the BFD model session key with an additional
identifier, e.g., <interface/dst-ip/instance>. IMO, this would be
preferable to allowing the details of BFD to permeate into all the other
protocol models. This would require configuration of the instance rather
than a boolean in the protocols.

Thanks,
Acee 




On 6/19/17, 2:57 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:

>[Long delayed response.]
>
>Reshad picked up the key points: Some things may make sense in the
>per-client (protocol) users of BFD, some things perhaps do not.  And some
>come down to questions for timer granularity.
>
>The OSPF and ISIS models both make use of BFD simply by providing a
>boolean
>that says "I'm using BFD or not".
>
>Where we run into some issues are the cases highlighted: when the sessions
>don't share common properties, how should the protocol pick what BFD
>session
>to use?  
>
>The current BFD yang model only permits a single IP single-hop session
>to be configured.  (Key is interface/dst-ip)  This means that if different
>parameters *were* desired, the BFD model won't permit it today.  However,
>BFD sessions for many protocols tend not to be configured, but may spring
>forth from protocol state, such as IGP adjacencies.  Thus, it's not
>"configured" - it's solely operational state.  However, the BFD yang model
>doesn't really make good provision for that as an "on".
>
>Where all endpoint state is known a priori, config state makes better
>sense.
>
>To pick the example of Juniper's configuration, if OSPF and eBGP were
>using
>BFD, both can choose differing timers.  This represents two pieces of
>configuration state for the same endpoints.  Additionally, only one BFD
>session is formed using the most aggressive timers.
>
>I partially point out the situation of multiple timers since there have
>been
>prior list discussions on the situation where clients have different
>timing
>requirements.  I don't think we handle this operationally in the BFD
>protocol in the cleanest fashion right now - the session will go to Down
>when the aggressive timers fail and there's no clean way to renegotiate to
>the less aggressive timers.
>
>-- Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:31:38AM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
>> We started off with the intent of having BFD parameters in the
>>applications/protocols which make use of BFD. For timer/multiplier this
>>is pretty straight-forward, although the discussion of what to do when
>>not all applications have the same BFD parameters for the same session
>>(e.g. Go with most aggressive etc). Then we started looking at
>>authentication parameters and having BFD authentication parms in
>>OSPF/ISIS etc is not intuitive. And what do we do if applications have
>>different BFD authentication parms. We concluded that the BFD
>>authentication parms were better off in BFD. And once we did that, the
>>timer/multiplier followed....
>> 
>> I may not recall all the details/discussons, but I do recall that we
>>went back and forth on this and it took some time to make the decision.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Reshad (as individual contributor).
>> 
>> From: Mahesh Jethanandani
>><mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>>
>> Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:34 PM
>> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
>> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@juniper.net<mailto:jhaas@juniper.net>>, OSPF WG
>>List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>,
>>"draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>"
>><draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>>,
>>"draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>"
>><draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>>,
>>"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>"
>><rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: Re: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
>> Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
>> Resent-To: <vero.zheng@huawei.com<mailto:vero.zheng@huawei.com>>,
>>Reshad <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>,
>><mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>>,
>><santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com<mailto:santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>>,
>><gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
>> Resent-Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:40 PM
>> 
>> Resending with correct BFD WG address.
>> 
>> On May 18, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani
>><mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Agree with Acee's assessment. After much debate, we decided that we
>>should leave BFD parameter configuration in the BFD model itself, and
>>have any IGP protocol reference the BFD instance in BFD itself. This
>>makes sense specially if multiple protocols fate-share the BFD session.
>> 
>> Cheers.
>> 
>> On May 18, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
>><acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jeff,
>> 
>> At the OSPF WG Meeting in Chicago, you suggested that we may want to
>>provide configuration of BFD parameters within the OSPF model
>>(ietf-ospf.yang). We originally did have this configuration. However,
>>after much discussion and coordination with the BFD YANG design team, we
>>agreed to leave the BFD session parameters in BFD and only enable BFD
>>within the OSPF and IS-IS models.
>> 
>> We did discuss the fact that vendors (notably Cisco IOS-XR and Juniper
>>JUNOS) do allow configuration within the IGPs. However, the consensus
>>was to leave the BFD configuration in the BFD model. The heuristics to
>>determine what parameters to use when the same BFD endpoint was
>>configured with different parameters in different protocols were
>>proprietary and somewhat of a hack.
>> 
>> I may have not remembered all the details so I'd encourage others to
>>chime in.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
>> 
>> 
>>