Re: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi
"Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)" <pmohapat@cisco.com> Thu, 08 May 2008 15:20 UTC
Return-Path: <softwires-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: softwires-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-softwires-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2AC28D6CC; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A55A3A6F0C for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0LtYS8Uy-iaq for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559A328D726 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 May 2008 08:19:56 -0700
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m48FJuUp016033; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:19:56 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m48FJt8B014852; Thu, 8 May 2008 15:19:55 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 8 May 2008 08:19:55 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 08:19:54 -0700
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540709957F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <200805052235.m45MZ9x12922@magenta.juniper.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi
Thread-Index: AcivAYdgQkbzBt9bRvCCdYUdO65FRQCHHPDg
References: Your message of "Mon, 05 May 2008 15:34:31 CDT."<89F15385-FDFE-4973-A8B2-A2F358655DFE@cisco.com> <200805052235.m45MZ9x12922@magenta.juniper.net>
From: "Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)" <pmohapat@cisco.com>
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2008 15:19:55.0787 (UTC) FILETIME=[F89775B0:01C8B11E]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4155; t=1210259996; x=1211123996; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pmohapat@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Pradosh=20Mohapatra=20(pmohapat)=22=20<pmohapat @cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Softwires]=20softwires-encaps-safi |Sender:=20; bh=YZABwBoabjTK7z5iGsiarmBTja0g9J80YuTKw4d39HY=; b=oDw+KP1i0hwCsJhp5pY1fStlue6pda5bfCxHPXR/XnoECod9NPA93cSs6t gJCoer5pEpYrLOqrw41xsGCrKcGGwtWoPDRWKiqxkwgN+iBnQzlH0UOtbRkC IyN4HUf9pW;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pmohapat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>, Alain Durand <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, softwires@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, jianping <jianping@cernet.edu.cn>, riw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: softwires-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: softwires-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Yakov, | From 4.3: | | Additionally, the Encapsulation SAFI UPDATE message can contain a | community or extended-community as a way to color the corresponding | tunnel TLV(s). The same community or extended community can then be | attached to the UPDATE messages that contain payload prefixes. This | way, the BGP speaker can express the fact that it expects the packets | corresponding to these payload prefixes to be received with a | particular tunnel encapsulation header. | | With this in mind consider a scenario where a PE receives an encaps-safi | update for a tunnel destined to address A1, and this update is "colored" | with a particular community C. The PE also receives an VPN-IPv4 update | that carries the same community C, but its next hop is not A1, but A2. | | What should the PE do when resolving the next hop towards VPN-IPv4 routes ? | | One could argue that if the nexthop address in a VPN-IPv4 update does not | match any of the addresses from an encaps-safi update, the nexthop can not | get resolved. In other words, this should be treated as a misconfig -- i.e. | there is no way to reach that nexthop using a tunnel encap (unless | there is some local config forcing to use an encap). | | However, this argument is incorrect, as just because the nexthop address | in the VPN-IPv4 update does not match any of the addresses from an | encap-safi update does not really mean that "the next hop can not get | resolved". In other words, just because there is no way to reach the | nexthop using the tunnel carried in the encap-safi, does not mean that | there is no way to that nexthop. Are you referring to nexthop validation or nexthop resolution in this context? I consider these as different: nexthop validation is what triggers the BGP speaker to accept the received prefixes or reject them. Nexthop resolution is what triggers the BGP speaker to install the prefixes in forwarding table for active lookups. If the nexthop is not resolved, the prefixes are put in unresolved state. The nexthop resolution itself takes various forms and is heavily dependent on whether the packet needs to be tunneled or sent in native encoding format. If the application is to send the packet tunneled, just checking nexthop reachability (e.g. IGP information) is not sufficient and it would in fact be incorrect to resolve the nexthop & prefixes just based on that (An example is the MPLS VPN case where we need to have MPLS encaps be available for the BGP nexthops). Coming back to encaps SAFI discussion, I think there are two scenarios where I sense a concern: (1) No encaps-safi for a nexthop, (2) encaps-safi for a nexthop, but there is no match for prefix color Let's take the first case. We agreed before that encaps-safi is not a MUST (e.g. GRE tuneling), at which point, it becomes a local configuration on how to encap. If there is no local configuration, I still maintain that having no encaps-safi for a nexthop means that nexthop is unresolved. This is because signaling information is propagated asynchronously in the network. If a PE receives a VPN-IPv4 UPDATE with nexthop N1 and there is no encaps-safi information about N1, it does not necessarily mean N1 is to be resolved in a certain different way. It could very well mean that the encaps-SAFI update for N1 is in transit -- so the prefixes need to be kept in unresolved state till N1's encap information is available. There could, of course, be a local config to assume a certain default encap, but in the absense of that config, it is better to put it in unresolved state. I consider the second to be a "special case" of the first. Local configuration can override to derive encap information for N1, but in the absense of that, it would be unresolved. May be the color could carry a notion of "strict" match vs. a "loose" match in that, if it is signaled as a 'loose' match, then even if the prefixes are not colored, the nexthop is considered to be resolved for those prefixes? - Pradosh _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
- [Softwires] Mesh drafts to WG LC David Ward
- Re: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi Yakov Rekhter
- Re: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)
- Re: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)
- [Softwires] softwire-encaps-safi Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)
- Re: [Softwires] softwire-encaps-safi Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)
- Re: [Softwires] softwire-encaps-safi Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)
- Re: [Softwires] softwires-encaps-safi Yakov Rekhter