Unfortunately I don’t have the history, we discovered this behavior when doing some VPNv6 testings a couple of months ago between IOS and Junos. IOS XE does advertise two nexthops.
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:11 To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS Cc: Xiejingrong; softwi...@ietf.org; draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] [Softwires] Regarding the Next Hop Network Address coding for IPv4 VPN over IPv6 Core in RFC5549 Stephane, Sure you can send two NHs next to each other. But my main question is what should the receiver of such "thing" do ? Which next hop is more important to be actually used in forwarding ? Based on what elements such decision is made ... If you know some history and can share it here iI think it may be useful for others. Btw which implementation sends two :) ? Should not be a big secret I suppose. Thx, R. On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:48 AM <stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>> wrote: Hi Robert, There are implementations which set two NHs, here is a capture: Update Message (2), length: 150 Multi-Protocol Reach NLRI (14), length: 100, Flags [O]: AFI: IPv6 (2), SAFI: labeled VPN Unicast (128) nexthop: RD: 0:0 (= 0.0.0.0), 2000::162RD: 0:0 (= 0.0.0.0), fe80::2a94:fff:fefa:3cc0, nh-length: 48, no SNPA RD: 10283:803700200 (= 47.231.125.232), 2000:bebe:37::/56, label:1313 (bottom) RD: 10283:803700200 (= 47.231.125.232), 2000:bebe:37::1/128, label:1314 (bottom) Origin (1), length: 1, Flags [T]: IGP AS Path (2), length: 6, Flags [T]: 11111 Extended Community (16), length: 8, Flags [OT]: target (0x0002), Flags [none]: 11111:999900200 (= 59.153.68.40) Note that this behavior caused some interop issues with another vendor who partially supported RFC4659. Brgds, From: Idr [mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 12:50 To: Xiejingrong Cc: softwi...@ietf.org<mailto:softwi...@ietf.org>; draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] [Softwires] Regarding the Next Hop Network Address coding for IPv4 VPN over IPv6 Core in RFC5549 > Back to my suggestion: implementation should interpret nexthop RD+IPv4 and > nexthop IPv4 the same, and interpret nexthop RD+IPv6 and nexthop IPv6 the > same. When elements of BGP UPDATE message are being parsed code must know what to expect. Note that we are dealing here with deployed SAFI 128 for nearly 20 years. So today there are two ways to know what format of next hop is in MP_REACH: a) Inferring it from AFI/SAFI per section 3 of RFC4760 or (in addition to the above coarse assumption) b) Inferring it from the discrete value of next hop length field as defined in section 3 of RFC5549 Note that if we would be defining new SAFI we can write anything we like to the rules of constructing the update message. But here again we are dealing with something which is deployed so sort of operating on the plane in flight. If implementation can infer next hop type from length we are safe to define all sections to have next hop length = 16 octets and be done. But if there are some implementations which would only take AFI/SAFI to check if the next hop is correct or even further to check if the next hop length is correct then we have a problem. /* Btw this notion of next hop length = 32 is bizarre ! I have never seen any BGP implementation sending two next hops (global IPv6 address followed by link local IPv6 address) not I am able to find any docs describing how any BGP stack would handle it. IMHO we should move this 32 next hop length to historic asap. */ To the msg from Martin, > maybe the WG would like to reach a conclusion on how to treat that erratum: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5738 I would vote to reject the errata. There is no value of stuffing 8 octet of zeros in the next hop field. If the RFC got defined in 2012 that really means that most implementations are capable of inferring next hop format from the length field - which is very good. Accepting the errata would be a step backwords. Thx, R. On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:15 AM Xiejingrong <xiejingr...@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingr...@huawei..com>> wrote: Thanks for the RFC historical lessons. --there was historically some assumption that next hop must be of the same AF as prefix. --RFC 2858 says that Next Hop field should match AFI. On the other hand, RFC 4760 says that Next Hop Field should match combination of AFI/SAFI. --authors of RFC 4364 were trying to make it consistent with 4760. --Also, drafts of RFC 4364 and RFC 4760 were being developed practically at the same time period. The problem is clear, the nexthop field has been inconsistent between different L3VPN/MVPN scenarios and different implementations in the long history. <draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00> is the latest draft, but it has different nexthop in section 3.1 to 3.4, in the year 2019. Back to my suggestion: implementation should interpret nexthop RD+IPv4 and nexthop IPv4 the same, and interpret nexthop RD+IPv6 and nexthop IPv6 the same. I think it may be helpful for <draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00> to add the above text, and update RFC4364/4659/4760/5549, to eliminate the worries about interoperation. ----is there any worries about interoperation ? Thanks Jingrong From: Alexander Okonnikov [mailto:alexander.okonni...@gmail.com<mailto:alexander.okonni...@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:38 PM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Cc: UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com<mailto:ju1...@att.com>>; Xiejingrong <xiejingr...@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingr...@huawei.com>>; softwi...@ietf.org<mailto:softwi...@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>; ian.far...@telekom.de<mailto:ian.far...@telekom.de>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; ianfar...@gmx.com<mailto:ianfar...@gmx.com> Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] [Softwires] Regarding the Next Hop Network Address coding for IPv4 VPN over IPv6 Core in RFC5549 Hi Robert, Sorry, I was not so precise :-) Of course, RD part in Next Hop is not copied from RD of NLRI, but zeroed. I was trying to explain why Next Hop field in RFC 4364 and RFC 4659 has format RD:IP (VPNvX address) rather than just IP. Thank you! _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
