Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgrading to FGL (fine-grained-labeling)
Ayan Banerjee <ayabaner@gmail.com> Wed, 30 January 2013 00:22 UTC
Return-Path: <ayabaner@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8061B21F8626 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:22:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PST-TuHsXZ2i for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AF721F8718 for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id p1so689992vcq.30 for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:22:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RM4X0ZU/FnBWTgXHd/YECTq06oQxGwIbsC1JJ5sFhr0=; b=PyJgGJyIzy8eTPz5t+NvNIx6s3LTs6qEo6+rFO4D2QyfhY3AziljGedNiXZTBvJ+iU cpNfEKsK+DOvFIAjitx1KnJosabGy107wQULZknCy1NOB9LZI5hfRs5N2wB3lRfnCS0U cDf9cpXiWduleEWQUG5MWoRiMcN9XmSspKyn4+wPumDhkIjuEy/eAOeppB5HECDjr7cX V/IHq7E+q5DkY+T9lnFuiDQmbV7xZ8Wr5H5PB4TvowDl119sI00K9G1s55Usoh7t8BoB LNEK1ppeqLJ4zIlLOas2+CWXaA498ec4GnfmUPACcodRIrcSVTR+MFWMvG8Zjlvtmn2M XSUQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.66.14 with SMTP id b14mr2897234vdt.0.1359505362874; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:22:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.144.78 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:22:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEEL-FjzKxbxg93t6QTTJy_5uVtok1_RAS1=pR_0B_p1kQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFOuuo67iBR2JkDtwPFCkrKHs3Fp4U_L1jkmNz5sfht6y05YMw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzx0E3J4i5Dvfbj4egruCeGi7z1se1Jn5RXtx3RedQLPdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHD03N89RNX4=XxRZpD+Y2PCktYf-FtVjyYJ5oFS3dui3SsXaA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEG7YKGzGmObAMaOxackivjJsALymqHX=6PKBd5qU-Z+zQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHD03N8HMnMY9p2dm60qCnTfNXL-rawf0hkY0a=cKF_B+jknXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEEL-FjzKxbxg93t6QTTJy_5uVtok1_RAS1=pR_0B_p1kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:22:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHD03N8T5rY4nFT46QX8EQ_KjarbugFNjFcjazk1ZiV4F4AymA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ayan Banerjee <ayabaner@gmail.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3071c8aa396fdb04d47682b1"
Cc: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgrading to FGL (fine-grained-labeling)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:22:52 -0000
Thanks much Donald. I think that I would vote for approach 2. Ayan On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote: > Ayan, > > Yes, it would probably be good to have a brief informational section > describing the intended VL to FGL migration scenario. > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ayan Banerjee <ayabaner@gmail.com> wrote: > > Donald, > > > > Yes, realize that would be way to do it - not sure if these options are > > being captured in a document, if so it would be great if this also added > > there. > > > > Thanks, > > Ayan > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ayan, > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Ayan Banerjee <ayabaner@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > I agree with Anoop here. > >> > > >> > I think that we are describing a network that is FGL-safe and ready > and > >> > then > >> > switch to FGL-mode. However, we need some statements to account for a > >> > VL-node coming-in/leaving-the network due to a flaky link. > >> > >> The general assumption is that you are migrating from VL to FGL. First > >> you migrate to FGL-safe. Then you unleash the FGL traffic, by > >> configuring FGL ports, which isolates any remaining (FGL-unsafe) VL > >> switches while still being able to handle VL traffic between VL ports > >> on FGL-safe switches. > >> > >> After you have unleashed FGL traffic, it would certainly be possible > >> that a VL switch could be attached to the network or come and go due > >> to a flakey link, but this would have almost no effect. With FGL > >> traffic being handled, VL switches are isolated. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Donald > >> ============================= > >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > >> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > >> d3e3e3@gmail.com > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > Ayan > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Anoop Ghanwani < > anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> At noted, option 1 looks dangerous so that should be ruled out. > >> >> > >> >> Option 2 seems reasonable. It might be useful to clarify a couple of > >> >> things: > >> >> - Can the FGL-safe campus have both VLAN & FGL frames going around? > >> >> - Do all RBridges need to agree on when the campus is FGL-safe? I > >> >> would > >> >> hope not. But the problem I'm thinking about is where RB1 thinks > >> >> the campus is > >> >> FGL-safe and starts announcing attachment to FGL links, but RB2 > >> >> hadn't > >> >> yet > >> >> concluded that process and it see RB3 which happens to be VL. > >> >> > >> >> Option 3 seems to introduce more complexity to solve this problem > than > >> >> is necessary. > >> >> > >> >> Anoop > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Radia Perlman > >> >> <radiaperlman@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > I'm going to summarize three options for phasing-in FGL, and > explain > >> >> > the > >> >> > tradeoffs, to help people have informed opinions about the > >> >> > implications > >> >> > of > >> >> > the three approaches. There are infinite variations, of course, > but > >> >> > as > >> >> > I > >> >> > said, I'll describe three main ones. > >> >> > > >> >> > Option 1: Original draft, no changes. There are two types of > >> >> > RBridges. > >> >> > The > >> >> > first type is "VL" which only understands VLAN tags, and have > unknown > >> >> > and > >> >> > possibly dangerous behavior when they receive an FGL-labeled > packet. > >> >> > (e.g., > >> >> > decapsulate a packet onto a link where it is not allowed, or > >> >> > mistakenly > >> >> > prune a multicast so it does not reach everywhere it should). The > >> >> > second > >> >> > type is "FGL". FGL guys need to do two things: 1) understand FGL > >> >> > tags > >> >> > and > >> >> > do the right thing with them, and 2) ostrasize VL guys...meaning > that > >> >> > an > >> >> > FGL > >> >> > guy refuses to form an adjacency with a VL guy. This option is > very > >> >> > simple > >> >> > for implementers of FGL, but the implication is that you have to > >> >> > upgrade > >> >> > your entire campus to FGL at once. There is no coexistence. > >> >> > > >> >> > Option 2: Two types of RBridges, but the 2nd type is different from > >> >> > option > >> >> > 1. VL guys of course are the same as in option 1...they cannot be > >> >> > trusted > >> >> > with FGL frames. The second type I will call "FGL-safe". An > FGL-safe > >> >> > RBridge > >> >> > must advertise in its LSP that it is FGL-safe, and it must not "do > >> >> > anything > >> >> > bad" with FGL frames, meaning that it is allowed to ignore pruning > of > >> >> > FGL > >> >> > (or even VL frames) entirely...it just can't falsely drop FGL > frames. > >> >> > And > >> >> > it must not decapsulate an FGL frame onto a link for which that FGL > >> >> > frame > >> >> > doesn't belong. In this option, all RBridges must be upgraded to > >> >> > FGL-safe, > >> >> > but it need not happen instantaneously...it's fine to mix FGL-safe > >> >> > RBridges > >> >> > with VL RBridges...it's just not safe to inject FGL frames yet. > Once > >> >> > all > >> >> > the RBridges have been upgraded to be FGL-safe, then edge RBridges > >> >> > can > >> >> > start > >> >> > announcing they are connected to an FGL link, and can start > injecting > >> >> > FGL > >> >> > packets. It is considered a misconfiguration if you start > injecting > >> >> > FGL > >> >> > frames before all the RBridges are upgraded to FGL-safe, so an > >> >> > additional > >> >> > chore for an FGL-safe RBridge R1 is to examine LSPs, and if any > >> >> > RBridge > >> >> > claims to be attached to an FGL link, then R1 must ostrasize any VL > >> >> > neighbors. (don't start ostrasizing VL guys until it is necessary > >> >> > because > >> >> > of actually starting to use FGL frames, in other words). This > option > >> >> > is > >> >> > more > >> >> > work for the upgraded RBridges than option 1, and there still isn't > >> >> > good > >> >> > coexistence with VL guys long-term (as option 3 will), but it does > >> >> > allow > >> >> > upgrading RBridges one by one in a working campus without causing > >> >> > disruption. > >> >> > > >> >> > Option 3: Two types of RBridges. VL, of course, is the same as in > >> >> > options 1 > >> >> > and 2. This option makes FGL guys do more work, but allows maximal > >> >> > long > >> >> > term coexistence of VL and FGL guys. In this option, FGL guys > >> >> > calculate > >> >> > unicast paths to FGL edge guys that avoid any VL guys, and > calculate > >> >> > at > >> >> > least one FGL-friendly multicast tree that also avoids any VL guys. > >> >> > So > >> >> > let's > >> >> > say R1 is an FGL guy. R1 discards all LSPs from VL guys (ones that > >> >> > don't > >> >> > advertise FGL capability in their LSP), when calculating paths to > >> >> > other > >> >> > FGL > >> >> > RBridges. Then R1 calculates paths to the VL guys using all LSPs. > >> >> > Likewise, > >> >> > when calculating an FGL-friendly tree, R1 calculates a tree through > >> >> > only > >> >> > FGL > >> >> > guys. This option is more work for the upgraded RBridges (because > >> >> > they > >> >> > have to calculate Dijkstra in two different ways, one for reaching > VL > >> >> > guys, > >> >> > and one for reaching FGL guys). However, it does allow having > >> >> > long-term > >> >> > coexistence with VL guys. For instance, you could forever keep > some > >> >> > VL > >> >> > edge > >> >> > RBridges that communicate just fine through an FGL core. They can > >> >> > stay > >> >> > there forever, and still be able to communicate through the core to > >> >> > all > >> >> > the > >> >> > links attaching to their VLAN. > >> >> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > trill mailing list > >> >> > trill@ietf.org > >> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > >> >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> trill mailing list > >> >> trill@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > trill mailing list > >> > trill@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > >> > > > > > >
- [trill] Explaining three options for upgrading to… Radia Perlman
- [trill] 答复: Explaining three options for upgradin… Haoweiguo
- Re: [trill] 答复: Explaining three options for upgr… Radia Perlman
- [trill] 答复: 答复: Explaining three options for upgr… Haoweiguo
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] 答复: 答复: Explaining three options for … Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Ayan Banerjee
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Ayan Banerjee
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Ayan Banerjee
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Donald Eastlake
- [trill] 答复: 答复: 答复: Explaining three options for … Haoweiguo
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Yizhou Li
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… hu.fangwei
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… zhai.hongjun
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Jon Hudson
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Jon Hudson
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Radia Perlman
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Olen Stokes
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Radia Perlman
- [trill] 答复: Explaining three options for upgradin… Haoweiguo
- Re: [trill] 答复: Explaining three options for upgr… Radia Perlman
- [trill] 答复: 答复: Explaining three options for upgr… Haoweiguo
- Re: [trill] Explaining three options for upgradin… Jon Hudson