Hi, Folks:
This is regarding draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-03 . I have reviewed the previous
presentations & discussions on IDR wg meetings and mailer. In preparation for
the upcoming IDR interim, I am raising concerns about CAR proposal to establish
end-to-end intent-aware paths. Can the authors of the draft respond to these.
IMO BGP CAR is an overkill for what we need. Some of the proposed changes in
CAR proposal look to me as pretty fundamental to BGP. While “any” protocol
extensions are possible, IMHO we should review the trade-offs. I see the CAR
authors are trying to solve the same problem that BGP Classful Transports aka
BGP-CT solves in a different way. My objection is – while we want to provide
alternative solution to classful transports, we don’t want to take BGP protocol
constructs to orthogonal direction which is not good for both operators and
vendors.
Personally, when I compare BGP CAR to BGP-CT, the BGP-CT is a natural extension
of existing IP-VPN mechanism. I have not seen much discussion on what’s missing
in BGP-CT and I’m sure more discussions may lead to improvements (if any) in
that proposal. I propose we review BGP CT proposal and provide suggestions to
improve it. It seems better bang for buck than introducing new concepts in BGP
which seems suboptimal and complexity from protocol extensions.
Following is the list comments/objections (not a complete list) to the CAR
proposal. Please see below for more details.
1. Color ambiguity: As per details in section 2.9.3 and 2.8 of the draft,
the color represents the intent within the color domain (which can span across
IGP/AS domains) and as authors describe it, it is under a common
administration. I have following observations and objections related to this.
* The intent is present in two places : NLRI and attribute. This leads
confusion as to which one to believe.
* Even though we achieve some mapping across domains under common
“color” administration,
* For CAR NLRIs with LCM, implementation can become complicated to
deal with color present in NLRI and color present in LCM, the effective color
can vary from prefix to prefix and this may end up inefficient data storage and
prefix management.
* It also adds operational complexity for troubleshooting to trace
the routes and color across hops, multiple RRs and different domains. The
operator has to track the effective color, sometimes it will be the color in
the NLRI, and sometimes it may be in LCM, and it has to be tracked on a hop by
hop basis along the multi-domain path – thus making it impractical or very
difficult to track prefix and its effective color.
* One may end up with routes as below. These are two different
prefixes as the color is different. But LCM makes them comparable. So can they
be considered as multipaths ? Can either of the paths be used for route
resolution ? If one has to be preferred over other route, what is the
selection criteria and why. The draft does not provide details:
Route1: Prefix:1.1.1.1, Color 100; attribute local-pref 10
Route2: Prefix:1.1.1.1, Color 200; attribute LCM 100, local-pref 20
* With ADD-PATH, multiple paths for the prefix {E,C} get advertised,
but the identity of the originator of the route will be lost. For
troubleshooting, it may be very useful to know who originated the route,
especially with color mapping across domains.
1. CAR NLRI encoding: In section 2.9 of the 03 version, the non-key fields
can have “Transitive” bit. This is going towards the attribute definition way.
While this may be a good idea to provide key and non-key structure for managing
prefixes, I am not sure if the added complexity would be justified.
* This is going towards a mode where NLRI can become very big with many
objects can exist within NLRI as non-key fields. This may also lead to more
discussions when a new object is introduced as to should it be in
attribute-only or as non-key field only in NLRI or both, leading to
interoperable issues and misinterpretations. IMHO the use case does not mandate
or lead to such a big change in NLRI encoding.
* I understand that moving label from prefix SID to the NLRI may improve
packing, but it is not clear if there is a definite gain. Even if there is
some gain, the number of labeled routes in any network would be relatively
small thus making gain insignificant. We know that operators attach communities
to NLRIs that may bring in uniqueness, so you may be optimizing for a
non-practical use case. I feel this is an academic exercise. The Prefix-SID has
been standardized at IDR (rfc8669) and has been deployed in many networks
already. I have not seen discussions on NLRI packing as an issue raised by any
operator. Also, I’m not convinced if it is worth going through protocol
modifications and implementations across networks, as the so called “packing
issue” will continue to exist until old implementations are around. We should
not have coded prefix-sid as an attribute IMHO, but it is too late now.
Associating label/prefix-SID with next hop is a better way to solve that
problem. There is already a draft (draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute).
Its worthwhile to look into that.
* If an operator wishes to attach a community or some identifier to
uniquely identify the point of origination of such a color prefix, then packing
advantage is lost unless we bring that “attribute” into NLRI as a non-key. This
is going to add more complexity.
1. Path compression: This happens at aggregation/pinch points. Section 2.7
of the draft describes the path availability by proposing add-path. I agree
add-path gives the path diversity, but it also has negative effect.
* ADD-PATH is a router by router feature. It has to be enabled pervasive
across networks. We all know that ADD-PATH can be pretty expensive from memory
and processing perspective. Not to mention the troubleshooting overhead by
tracking path-ids. ADD-PATH is a good feature to avoid route oscillations when
it was proposed, but using it for more use cases will be costly for the
network. Operators with BGP-LU are painfully aware of this and are careful to
turn on ADD-PATH in their networks for this exact reason.
* ADD-PATH has been tried and deployed at RR and primarily iBGP
peering. We tried solving it for EBGP with edge_discriminator attribute and we
do not have deployment experience of this working at inter-AS boundaries.
1. Forwarding diversity: Section 2.9.2.1 describes how a label TLV can be
encoded in the CAR NLRI but the draft does not address the following scenario
* It is not possible for a router to express different forwarding
paths/encapsulations for a CAR NLRI. This can be useful in inter-AS scenarios
when you want to expose the diverse paths across domains.
NLRI: 1.1.1.1, color C1, label L1
NLRI: 1.1.1.1, color C1, label L2
1. Color based resolution: Section 2.5 introduces how CAR route can be
resolved, but I’m not too sure if the authors have worked out the details of
the scheme.
* For example if a router has the following routes, cost of computing
the best path is not trivial. It is also not intuitive. Implementation wise,
this can be inefficient walk all routing information. Either there is a CPU or
memory cost to this way of color mapping.
NLRI:1.1.1.1 color 100, attribute local-pref 100
NLRI2: 1.1.1.1 color 200, LCM 100, attribute local-pref 200
NLRI3: 1.1.1.1 color 300, attribute local-pref 300
NLRI4: 1.1.1.1 color 400, attribute LCM 100, local-pref 400
* Operationally this may be difficult for operator too.
1. VPN CAR: This may be an interesting concept about extending the color to
CE.
* But, is this requirement real ?
* The draft proposes replacement of L3vpn family & ipv4-unicast which is
the de facto for PE-CE protocol with CAR NLRI. This will bring in operational
nightmare.
* I’ve raised concerns with LCM above and it adds even more complexity
when such intent/color is extended to CE routes IMHO from deployment,
troubleshooting perspective.
2. RTC mechanism:
* In the CAR proposal color is encoded in the NLRI and hence the current
RTC mechanism cannot be leveraged. I understand that LCM would not be present
for all CAR NLRIs and hence a new mechanism needs to be devised to cover NLRI
with and without LCM.
I appreciate comments from the authors and others on this topic.
Thanks & Regards,
srihari…
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
