Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-20 Thread Tony Przygienda
Yeah, so to give e'one his due, negative disaggregation is Pascal's brilliant brain-child, I bow to this. And I bow to his patience grinding me down to convince me the complexity of it is by far outweighted by elegance it brings to ugly failure repair. Then it took a lot of brow-beating until

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-20 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hey Tony, > people somehow implying a map of RIFT negative disaggregation in relation to this work I think those people just made a subtle point that considering IGP alone if you want to influence your data plane forwarding by advertising PUA in today's hardware you really need to install more

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-20 Thread Tony Przygienda
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 6:27 AM Aijun Wang wrote: > Hi, Tony: > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > On Nov 20, 2020, at 17:45, Tony Przygienda wrote: > >  > Yes, acknowledging the idea of negative disaggregation is inspired by RIFT > work is fine (and normally, when inspired by an idea at least

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-20 Thread Aijun Wang
;> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Aijun Wang >>> >>> China Telecom >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Acee L

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-20 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Tony: Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Nov 20, 2020, at 17:45, Tony Przygienda wrote: > >  > Yes, acknowledging the idea of negative disaggregation is inspired by RIFT > work is fine (and normally, when inspired by an idea at least in research > cycles it is considered basic courtesy to

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-20 Thread Tony Przygienda
Yes, acknowledging the idea of negative disaggregation is inspired by RIFT work is fine (and normally, when inspired by an idea at least in research cycles it is considered basic courtesy to refer to the according source, something has been lost more and more in IETF over time I dare to observe

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-20 Thread Gyan Mishra
> >>> >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Aijun Wang >>> >>> China Telecom >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> &g

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-20 Thread Robert Raszuk
; >> China Telecom >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2020 12:42 AM >> *To:* Aijun Wang ; 'Robert Raszuk' < >> rob...@raszuk.net>; 'Jeff Tantsura' >> *Cc:* 'Gyan Mishra' ; 'lsr' ;

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-19 Thread Gyan Mishra
:* Aijun Wang ; 'Robert Raszuk' < > rob...@raszuk.net>; 'Jeff Tantsura' > *Cc:* 'Gyan Mishra' ; 'lsr' ; 'Acee > Lindem (acee)' > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases > > > > Speaking as WG Co-Chair: > > > > *From: *Aijun Wang &g

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-18 Thread Aijun Wang
. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 12:42 AM To: Aijun Wang ; 'Robert Raszuk' ; 'Jeff Tantsura' Cc: 'Gyan Mishra' ; 'lsr' ; 'Acee Lindem (acee)' Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases Speaking

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-18 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking as WG Co-Chair: From: Aijun Wang Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:05 AM To: Robert Raszuk , Jeff Tantsura Cc: 'Gyan Mishra' , Acee Lindem , 'lsr' , "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" Subject: RE: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases Hi, Robert: The trigger and p

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-18 Thread Aijun Wang
From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:49 PM To: Jeff Tantsura Cc: Gyan Mishra ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr ; Aijun Wang ; Acee Lindem (acee) Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases Jeff, Please notice that WAN is not an IX. While you can have

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Robert Raszuk
te:* Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 4:02 AM > *To:* Robert Raszuk > *Cc:* lsr , Jeff Tantsura , Aijun > Wang , "Acee Lindem (acee)" 40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases > > > > > > > > On Tue

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Robert Raszuk
Raszuk ; Acee Lindem (acee) 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases > > > > > > And how would that help connectivity restoration ? > > *[WAJ] This action will trigger the path protection procedures, which will > dive

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Jeff Tantsura
> Cc: lsr , Jeff Tantsura , Aijun Wang > , "Acee Lindem (acee)" > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Raszuk wrote: > > quote_type > > > > > > > quote_type > >

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Huzhibo
Unreachable Announcement Use Cases And how would that help connectivity restoration ? [WAJ] This action will trigger the path protection procedures, which will divert the traffic to other backup path. This seems to be making some major assumptions about how path protection features operate. Those

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Gyan Mishra
Nov 17, 2020 at 9:43 AM Acee Lindem (acee) >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Speaking as WG member: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think it would be good to hone in on the BGP PE failure convergence >>>> use case as suggested by Robert. It seems

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Robert Raszuk
s, >>> >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Lsr on behalf of Gyan Mishra < >>> hayabusa...@gmail.com> >>> *Date: *Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 4:02 AM >>> *To: *Robert Raszuk >>> *Cc: *lsr , Jeff Tantsura

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Gyan Mishra
lace to solve this problem. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> *From: *Lsr on behalf of Gyan Mishra < >> hayabusa...@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 4:02 AM >> *To: *R

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Gyan Mishra
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:43 AM Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > Gyan>. We could use Aijun’s passive interface new top level TLV to >> link the next hop rewrite loopback to the PE-CE links all being set to >> passive. So if any PE-CE link goes down a PUA is sent and the next hop >>

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Gyan Mishra
: *lsr , Jeff Tantsura , Aijun > Wang , "Acee Lindem (acee)" 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > > > >Robert, I bel

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hi Gyan, Gyan>. We could use Aijun’s passive interface new top level TLV to > link the next hop rewrite loopback to the PE-CE links all being set to > passive. So if any PE-CE link goes down a PUA is sent and the next hop > converges PIC core PE-CE link which is now associated with the

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 4:02 AM To: Robert Raszuk Cc: lsr , Jeff Tantsura , Aijun Wang , "Acee Lindem (acee)" Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote: R

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Gyan Mishra
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 4:01 AM Gyan Mishra wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Raszuk wrote: > >> >> >>Robert, I believe the original intention was related to having the >>> data plane converge quickly when summarization is used and flip so traffic >>> converges from the

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Gyan Mishra
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Raszuk wrote: > > >Robert, I believe the original intention was related to having the data >> plane converge quickly when summarization is used and flip so traffic >> converges from the Active ABR to the Backup ABR. >> > > I do not buy this use case.

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Robert Raszuk
Robert, I believe the original intention was related to having the data > plane converge quickly when summarization is used and flip so traffic > converges from the Active ABR to the Backup ABR. > I do not buy this use case. Flooding within the area is fast such that both ABRs will get the

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Gyan Mishra
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:06 AM Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Moreover it seems that it will just also prevent any local protection to >> locally bypass the failed destination. >> >> *[WAJ] No, It will trigger the local protection instead, not prevent.* >> >> > You missed my point. > > I am talking

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Robert Raszuk
> Moreover it seems that it will just also prevent any local protection to > locally bypass the failed destination. > > *[WAJ] No, It will trigger the local protection instead, not prevent.* > > You missed my point. I am talking about *local* protection in a sense of adjacent node(s) to the

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-17 Thread Gyan Mishra
ferent and > needed to be specified. > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > > > *From: *Robert Raszuk > *Date: *Monday, November 16, 2020 at 3:25 AM > *To: *Aijun Wang > *Cc: *Jeff Tantsura , lsr , Acee > Lindem > *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcemen

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-16 Thread Gyan Mishra
Tony I agree. We have to be careful not to confuse path protection mentioned to RSVP FRR protection based on TEDs or LFA style local protection. We will redo the verbiage carefully to not call use pre-existing terminology term that will add confusion. Thanks for the feedback!! Thanks Gyan

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-16 Thread tony . li
>> And how would that help connectivity restoration ? >> [WAJ] This action will trigger the path protection procedures, which will >> divert the traffic to other backup path. This seems to be making some major assumptions about how path protection features operate. Those assumptions need to

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-16 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Jeff and Robert: Please see the response inlines. From: Jeff Tantsura Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 6:36 PM To: Robert Raszuk Cc: Aijun Wang ; lsr ; Acee Lindem (acee) Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases +1 with Robert. So you expect

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-16 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+1 with Robert. So you expect the following RIB state after PUA has been advertised: 10.0.0.1 - drop 10/24 - forward Unless there’s a recursively discarded next-hop (ala RTBH ) - how do you envision it? Regards, Jeff > On Nov 16, 2020, at 00:25, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >  >> I was not

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-16 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
, Acee Lindem Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane lookup does not really support "if does not match" checks. [WA

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-16 Thread Robert Raszuk
> > I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently > negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane > lookup does not really support "if does not match" checks. > > *[WAJ] In data plane, the device do still the “match” check, not “does not >

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Aijun Wang
(acee) Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases Jeff, I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane lookup does not really support "if does not match" che

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Thanks for clarification Robert, makes sense. Cheers, Jeff On Nov 15, 2020, 12:03 PM -0800, Robert Raszuk , wrote: > Jeff, > > I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently > negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane > lookup does

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Robert Raszuk
Jeff, I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane lookup does not really support "if does not match" checks. So if you intend to use unreachable prefixes in data plane as result you need to

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Gyan Mishra
Robert & Acee I have been working with Aijun to help clean up the verbiage in the draft which after IETF 109 will plan to do an update based on feedback. I will be presenting this draft as well as the passive interface draft tomorrow morning. It has been challenging trying to graphically depict

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Jeff Tantsura
As RIFT chair - I’d like to respond to Robert’ comment - the example is rather unfortunate, in RIFT disaggregation is conditional and well contained within its context, it doesn’t affect overall scalability. Regards, Jeff > On Nov 15, 2020, at 08:44, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >  > Hi Aijun,

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hi Aijun, I would in fact only propose that the presented mechanism is narrowed down to invalidate BGP (service) routes - in fact their next hops. The reason being that the moment you make the solution generic, moreover the moment you want it to be used in RIB and data plane I am afraid you are

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Robert: Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Nov 15, 2020, at 18:49, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >  > Hi Aijun, > > As I think what you are proposing overall is useful let me in turn comment on > some of your statements ... > >>> [WAJ] It is common, for example, ISIS level1-2 router will announce

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hi Aijun, As I think what you are proposing overall is useful let me in turn comment on some of your statements ... [WAJ] It is common, for example, ISIS level1-2 router will announce the >> default route to the level 1 area. And, also in the OSPF totally stubby >> area. >> > Well let's just

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-14 Thread 王爱俊
. Thanks in advance. Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人:Robert Raszuk 发送日期:2020-11-15 06:30:20 收件人:"Acee Lindem (acee)" 抄送人:"lsr@ietf.org" 主题:Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases Hi Acee, > 3.1 Inter-Area Node Failure Scenario – With respect to thi

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-14 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hi Acee, > 3.1 *Inter-Area Node Failure Scenario – *With respect to this use case, the node > in question is actually unreachable. In this case, the ABRs will normally install a > reject route for the advertised summary and will send an ICMP unreachable when > the packets are received for the

[Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-14 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking as WG member… With respect to the use cases in section 3: 3.1 Inter-Area Node Failure Scenario – With respect to this use case, the node in question is actually unreachable. In this case, the ABRs will normally install a reject route for the advertised summary and will send an ICMP