Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Question on RFC8660)
Martin Horneffer <maho@lab.dtag.de> Fri, 28 August 2020 10:13 UTC
Return-Path: <maho@lab.dtag.de>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033693A08E5 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 03:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=lab.dtag.de
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 0JQvJExI1ROu for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 03:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OldBailey.lab.dtag.de (OldBailey.lab.DTAG.DE [194.25.1.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE653A0853 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 03:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id C7D1CC1120; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:13:23 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lab.dtag.de; s=dkim; t=1598609603; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: in-reply-to:references; bh=xczt3cE88B9dMcPR3o8A83K4xmKH0Aaumqd3FyxgogY=; b=Mie/ScMW6O+Yt6gm32IqV04QgD/1rNNtFJ0xd0ufeJUt9qvp4mO6c8I41T/JRuasNnWbpC 7H55mDQpVoTCqEgv137vKCaxz/fqYJ3xo/mXcKE4JJhzUIavBoXwJhY7QY7EmlOe75dbq8 mWbC+25eVu/cChDWFug84iZhAeO6DAPx3CWyaQneqzg64P6sbOmJAQcpHVrNgj+ymPe8xP 0Rwh7BFVQUdHfzKPnIJ1Emh912CPzjLfaOMvwbXsF26mp3dJ4jORtYxOrQUCbnY5SWoQ7M EPE90Oe7Rb4gkMwRN5VziXzFXwNAL4lfBHr19Wt8OF98+AbT7+nBjw4UgL+Pbw==
To: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Cc: spring@ietf.org
References: <202008281131380547490@zte.com.cn>
From: Martin Horneffer <maho@lab.dtag.de>
Message-ID: <05d5bf15-9d7a-a093-d32f-e3af839bd41e@lab.dtag.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:13:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <202008281131380547490@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------173249FF22F82B138A614718"
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/YBja4JxSzcS0sW64P-7wx9W4j8w>
Subject: Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Question on RFC8660)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:13:31 -0000
Hi PSF, limiting the "forward unlabelled" behavior to packets with the bottom-of-stack bit set is an interesting idea. I haven't though about that yet. In my case that would definitely help and be perfectly ok. Best regards, Martin Am 28.08.20 um 05:31 schrieb peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn: > > > Hi Martin, > > > For the matched LFIB entry with unlabeled outgoing forwarding > information, I agree your opinion that public traffic need to be > forwarded. > > I think the above LFIB entry can easiely drop VPN traffic according to > no bottom flag of incomming LDP/SR label. > > > Regards, > > PSF > > > > 原始邮件 > *发件人:*MartinHorneffer <maho@lab.dtag.de> > *收件人:*spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>; > *日 期 :*2020年08月27日 18:35 > *主 题 :**[spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Question on > RFC8660)* > Hello everyone, > > may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it a little: > > In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should a node rather drop the packet, > or forward it? > This can happen whenever the IGP points to a certain next hop, but that > neither supplies a valid SID, nor allows LDP-stitching for whatever > reason. For PUSH as well as for CONTINUE. > > We have been using MPLS transport and a BGP free core since about two > decades now, using LDP. In the analog case, LDP creates "unlabelled" > entries in the LFIB, does the equivalent of a POP operation and forwards > the packet to the next-hop as chosen by the IGP. > > This behavior obviously breaks any traffic that relies on a service > label, but it can protect some traffic. > In our case a huge percentage of all traffic still is public IPv4. This > needs MPLS only for a transport label, be it LDP or SR-MPLS. If this > traffic gets forwarded unlabelled, it follows an IGP default route to a > central device, where it is 1) redirected to the correct destination and > 2) counted in a way that operators can quickly see whether and where > this kind of failure occurs at some point in the network. > > After more operational experience and several internal discussions we > agreed that we want packets to be forwarded unlabelled rather than > dropped. Anyone to share, or oppose this position? > > Best regards, Martin > > > Am 31.01.20 um 16:50 schrieb Martin Horneffer: > > Hello everyone, > > > > again it seems the interesting questions only show up when applying > > something to the live network... > > > > We ran into something that poses a question related to RFC8660: What > > is the exact meaning of section 2.10.1, "Forwarding for PUSH and > > CONTINUE of Global SIDs", when the chosen neighbor doesn't provide a > > valid MPLS path? > > > > The relevant sections reads: > > > > - Else, if there are other usable next hops, use them to forward > > the incoming packet. The method by which the router "R0" > > decides on the possibility of using other next hops is beyond > > the scope of this document. For example, the MCC on "R0" may > > chose the send an IPv4 packet without pushing any label to > > another next hop. > > > > Does the part "send an IPv4 packet without pushing any label" apply to > > PUSH and CONTINUE, or just to PUSH? > > Does R0 have to validate that neighbor N can correctly process to > > packet? Or can it forward the packet regardless? > > > > The reason for asking is that we are now seeing issues similar to ones > > we had when starting with LDP based MPLS about two decades ago: > > traffic being black holed even though a path to the destination > > exists, because the MPLS path is interrupted somewhere in the middle. > > > > With LDP we know the case of LFIBentries called "unlabelled". While > > this does break connectivity for many kinds of service, e.g. those > > relying on an additional service labels, it still works for plain > > IP(v4) traffic. In our cases, this works perfectly fine for all > > internal routing and control traffic. And even for IPv4 traffic that > > gets collected by a central router that injects a default route. > > > > However, depending on the exact interpretation of the above paragraph, > > an implementor might feel obliged to chose the next paragraph: > > > > - Otherwise, drop the packet. > > > > Which is, at least in our case, very unfortunate... > > > > Any advice or opinion appreciated! > > > > > > Best regards, Martin > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > spring@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
- [spring] Question on RFC8660 Martin Horneffer
- [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Qu… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… peng.shaofu
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Tarek Saad
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re… Martin Horneffer