Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your comment on the draft. I too, have a minor disagreement on your
disagreement.
The draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce, is really presented as “a use
case”/informational. In this case, a PE being hidden from other area due to
route summarization. The draft is not meant to “invent” something new, hence
the reference to RFC5305/RFC5308.
If you jump to RFC5308 (as we are looking at IPv6 here), the advertising
mechanism is well describe. What’s missing from RFC5308 from your view point ?
Thanks
Dan
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Bruno Decraene
<bruno.decra...@orange.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 10:09 AM
To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXT][Lsr] draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce
Hi Peter, authors, all
Thanks for the draft. I find it a useful contribution to the problem space.
IMHO the use of MAX_PATH_METRIC is a good idea in particular since it can be
made backward compatible and provides incremental benefits with incremental
deployment.
I also have two disagreements on the current draft. Both are minor IMO, but
authors may have a different opinion.
1. This draft defines a new signaling from an egress ABR to all ingress
ABR/PE. As such, this require all these nodes to agree on this signaling. So
I’d call for a STD track document.
2. IMO, the behavior defined in this draft is not backward compatible with
the specification of MAX_PATH_METRIC in an IP prefix.
RFC5305 says:
If a prefix is advertised with a metric larger then MAX_PATH_METRIC
(0xFE000000, see paragraph 3.0), this prefix MUST NOT be considered
during the normal SPF computation. This allows advertisement of a
prefix for purposes other than building the normal IP routing table.
As per the above, one (ABR) may (is allowed and free to do so) already
advertise both an aggregate prefix IP1/N with a regular metric and a more
specific prefix IP2/32 with MAX_PATH_METRIC.
With the above advertisement, all nodes compliant with RFC 5305 will install
IP1/N in their FIB and not consider IP2/32 during their SPF and as a
consequence not install it in their FIB.
In term of reachability, all nodes have IP reachability to all IP @ in IP1
including IP2.
If one node now implements the draft, it will remove reachability for IP2. And
hence all my BGP routes using IPv2 for next-hop will be removed.
This looks clearly like a change in behavior to me, plus one which introduce
loss of reachability in an existing network.
3) The solution that I would suggest is:
- advertise the “unreachable prefix” with metric MAX_PATH_METRIC
- define a new “Extended Reachability Attribute Flags” ([RFC 7794]) explicitly
signaling that the reachability to this prefix has been lost:
Unreachable Flag (U_flag). Set if this prefix is to be considered
unreachable.
This would allow for explicit signaling of the reachability (vs implicit
currently) and would be backward compatible with existing specification and
deployments.
Regards,
--Bruno
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
