[c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Mon Mar 12 09:06:25 EDT 2018

Routing loop to me sounds like operational problem, that things are
broken. That will not happen. Otherwise we're saying every network has
routing loops, because if you consider all RIB in every box, there are
tons of loops. I think we all agree most networks are loop free :>

You are saving DRAM, that's it.

In your case you're not even saving DRAM as cluster doesnt peer with
itself, so for you it's just additional complexity with no upside.
Harder to generate config, as you need to teach some system the
relation which node is in which cluster. Where as cluster-id==loop0 is
0-knowledge.

On 12 March 2018 at 14:42,  <adamv0025 at netconsultings.com> wrote:
> Ok I agree if a speaker is not connect to both (all) RRs in a cluster then you need to make up for that by connecting RRs to each other.
>
> Well isn't avoiding routing loops ultimately saving DRAM?
> I'd argue the cluster-id comparison is either about preventing acceptance of one's own advertisement (RRs talking in circle) or about preventing learning clients routes from a different RR (your diagram) - hence preventing routing loops and saving DRAM.
>
> adam
>
> netconsultings.com
> ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:saku at ytti.fi]
>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 11:54 AM
>> To: adamv0025 at netconsultings.com
>> Cc: Job Snijders; Mark Tinka; Cisco Network Service Providers
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)
>>
>> On 12 March 2018 at 13:41,  <adamv0025 at netconsultings.com> wrote:
>>
>> Typical reason for RR1, RR2 to have iBGP to each other is when they are in
>> forwarding path and are not dedicated RR, but also have external BGP to
>> them.
>>
>> And no, clusterID are not used for loop prevention, they are used to save
>> DRAM. There will be no routing loops by using arbitrary RR topology with
>> clusterID==loopback, BGP best path selection does not depend on non-
>> unique clusterID to choose loop free path.
>>
>> In your case, if the cluster isn't even peering with itself, then there truly is no
>> purpose for clusterID.
>>
>> > The point' I'm trying to make is that I don't see a reason why RR1 and RR2 in
>> a common cluster should have a session to each other and also why RR1 in
>> one cluster should have session to RR2s in all other clusters.
>> > (and if RR1 and RR2 share a common cluster ID then session between them
>> is a complete nonsense).
>> > Then if you go and shut PE1's session to RR1 and then go a shut PE2's
>> session to RR2 then it's just these two PEs affected and well what can I say
>> you better think twice next time or consider automation.
>> > One can't possibly bend the backbone architecture out of shape because of
>> all the cases where someone comes in a does something stupid (this
>> complexity has to me moved somewhere else in my opinion -for instance to
>> a system that won't allow you to commit something stupid).
>> >
>> > Regarding the scale - well there are setups there with couple millions of
>> just customer VPN prefixes.
>> >
>> > Regarding the Cluster-IDs - yes these are used for loop prevention but only
>> among RRs relying routes to each other -if  PE is in the loop then Originator-ID
>> should do the job just fine.
>> >
>> >
>> > adam
>> >
>> > netconsultings.com
>> > ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:saku at ytti.fi]
>> >> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 10:43 AM
>> >> To: adamv0025 at netconsultings.com
>> >> Cc: Job Snijders; Mark Tinka; Cisco Network Service Providers
>> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)
>> >>
>> >> Hey,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> RR1---RR2
>> >> |           |
>> >> PE1----+
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 1) PE1 sends 1M routes to RR2, RR2
>> >>
>> >> CaseA) Same clusterID
>> >> 1) RR1 and RR2 have 1M entries
>> >>
>> >> CaseB) Unique clusterID
>> >> 1) RR1 and RR2 have 2M entries
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cluster is promise that every client peers with exactly same set of
>> >> RRs, so there is no need to for RRs to share client routes inside
>> >> cluster, as they have already received it directly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course if client1 loses connection to RR2 and client2 loses
>> >> connection to RR1, client<->client2 do not se each other's routes.
>> >>
>> >> For same reason, you're not free to choose 'my nearest two RR' with
>> >> same cluster-id, as you must always peer with every box in same
>> >> cluster-id. So you lose topological flexibility, increase operational
>> >> complexity, increase failure- modes. But you do save that sweet sweet
>> DRAM.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Most blogs I read and even some vendor documents propose clusterID to
>> >> avoid loops, I think this is the real reason people use them, when RR
>> >> was setup, people didn't know what clusterID is for, and later stayed
>> >> committed on that initial false rationale and invented new rationales
>> >> to justify their position.
>> >>
>> >> Premature optimisation is source of great many evil. Optimise for
>> >> simplicity when you can, increase  complexity when you must.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 12 March 2018 at 12:34,  <adamv0025 at netconsultings.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Job Snijders
>> >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 12:21 PM
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Folks - i'm gonna cut short here: by sharing the cluster-id across
>> >> > multiple
>> >> >> devices, you lose in topology flexibility, robustness, and simplicity.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Gent's I have no idea what you're talking about.
>> >> > How can one save or burn RAM if using or not using shared
>> >> > cluster-IDs respectively???
>> >> > The only scenario I can think of is if your two RRs say RR1 and RR2
>> >> > in a POP serving a set of clients (by definition a cluster btw) -if
>> >> > these two RRs have an iBGP session to each other - which is a big
>> >> > NONO when you are using out of band RRs, no seriously.
>> >> > Remember my previous example about separate iBGP infrastructures
>> >> > one formed out of all clients connecting to RR1 in local POP and
>> >> > then all RR1s in all POPs peering with each other in full mesh and
>> >> > then the same infrastructure involving RR2s?
>> >> > Well these two iBGP infrastructures should work as ships in the night.
>> >> > If one infrastructure breaks at some point you still get all your
>> >> > prefixes to clients/RRs in affected POPs via the other infrastructure.
>> >> > That said both of these iBGP infrastructures need to carry the same
>> >> > set of prefixes, so the memory and cpu resources needed are
>> >> > proportional to the amount of information carried only.
>> >> > -but none of these need to carry the set of prefixes twice, see below.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes you could argue if A loses session to RR1 and B loses session
>> >> > to
>> >> > RR2 then A and B can't communicate, but the point is PEs just don't
>> >> > lose sessions to RRs -these are iBGP sessions that can route
>> >> > around, so the only scenario where this happens is misconfiguration
>> >> > and trust me you'll know right away that you broke something.
>> >> > Then you can argue that ok what if I have A to RR1-pop1 to RR1-pop2 to
>> B
>> >> > AND  A to RR2-pop1 to RR2-pop2 to B   AND  say RR1-pop1 as well as
>> RR2-
>> >> pop-2
>> >> > fail at the same then A and B can't communicate.
>> >> > Fair point that will certainly happen, but what is the likelihood
>> >> > of that happening? Well it's MTBF of RR1-POP-1 times MTBF of
>> >> > RR1-POP-1 which is fine for me and I bet for most folks out there.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > adam
>> >> >
>> >> > netconsultings.com
>> >> > ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> >> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>   ++ytti
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>   ++ytti
>

-- 
  ++ytti