Hi Robert,
the setup I sketched does not cover double failures nor 100 % of all
topological cases for forwarding.
And in fact, forwarding the traffic is not the main purpose. The main
purpose it to DETECT the failure in a useful way.
For the same reason we would sure not want to add yet another
encapsulation technology.
But, of course, if the behavior (drop or forward unlabelled) would be
configurable, that would be perfectly ok from my point of view.
Best regards, Martin
Am 27.08.20 um 14:45 schrieb Robert Raszuk:
Martin,
> it follows an IGP default route to a central device,
So putting aside that such default must point domian wide to the same
address (could be anycast if you are careful) once this "central
device" receives a packet and does a BGP full table lookup it will
again try to encapsulate it in MPLS towards exit.
What if the path is again via a device which breaks LDP LSP or SR
path and the packet will again go back to central device creating a
very nice loop ?
Sure central device could give up on MPLS all together and IP encap to
egress via your BGP free core - but you are not mentioning that.
Bottom line if you would not have BGP free core (or Internet route
free core) I would say sure good idea to continue. But since you do I
think this is a lot of hidden traps number of networks may fall into
by doing it. So at least it should not be a default behaviour.
Thx,
R.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:35 PM Martin Horneffer <m...@lab.dtag.de
<mailto:m...@lab..dtag.de>> wrote:
Hello everyone,
may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it
a little:
In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should a node rather drop the
packet,
or forward it?
This can happen whenever the IGP points to a certain next hop, but
that
neither supplies a valid SID, nor allows LDP-stitching for whatever
reason. For PUSH as well as for CONTINUE.
We have been using MPLS transport and a BGP free core since about two
decades now, using LDP. In the analog case, LDP creates "unlabelled"
entries in the LFIB, does the equivalent of a POP operation and
forwards
the packet to the next-hop as chosen by the IGP.
This behavior obviously breaks any traffic that relies on a service
label, but it can protect some traffic.
In our case a huge percentage of all traffic still is public IPv4.
This
needs MPLS only for a transport label, be it LDP or SR-MPLS. If this
traffic gets forwarded unlabelled, it follows an IGP default route
to a
central device, where it is 1) redirected to the correct
destination and
2) counted in a way that operators can quickly see whether and where
this kind of failure occurs at some point in the network.
After more operational experience and several internal discussions we
agreed that we want packets to be forwarded unlabelled rather than
dropped. Anyone to share, or oppose this position?
Best regards, Martin
Am 31.01.20 um 16:50 schrieb Martin Horneffer:
> Hello everyone,
>
> again it seems the interesting questions only show up when applying
> something to the live network...
>
> We ran into something that poses a question related to RFC8660:
What
> is the exact meaning of section 2.10.1, "Forwarding for PUSH and
> CONTINUE of Global SIDs", when the chosen neighbor doesn't
provide a
> valid MPLS path?
>
> The relevant sections reads:
>
> - Else, if there are other usable next hops, use them to
forward
> the incoming packet. The method by which the router "R0"
> decides on the possibility of using other next hops is
beyond
> the scope of this document. For example, the MCC on
"R0" may
> chose the send an IPv4 packet without pushing any label to
> another next hop.
>
> Does the part "send an IPv4 packet without pushing any label"
apply to
> PUSH and CONTINUE, or just to PUSH?
> Does R0 have to validate that neighbor N can correctly process to
> packet? Or can it forward the packet regardless?
>
> The reason for asking is that we are now seeing issues similar
to ones
> we had when starting with LDP based MPLS about two decades ago:
> traffic being black holed even though a path to the destination
> exists, because the MPLS path is interrupted somewhere in the
middle.
>
> With LDP we know the case of LFIBentries called "unlabelled"..
While
> this does break connectivity for many kinds of service, e.g. those
> relying on an additional service labels, it still works for plain
> IP(v4) traffic. In our cases, this works perfectly fine for all
> internal routing and control traffic. And even for IPv4 traffic
that
> gets collected by a central router that injects a default route.
>
> However, depending on the exact interpretation of the above
paragraph,
> an implementor might feel obliged to chose the next paragraph:
>
> - Otherwise, drop the packet.
>
> Which is, at least in our case, very unfortunate...
>
> Any advice or opinion appreciated!
>
>
> Best regards, Martin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
