[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Detecting router id change in p2p-over-lan connection
Can someone please explain me the rational behind terminating adjacency
in " if OSPF hello suppression as described in [DEMAND] is active for
the
adjacency, it MUST be terminated and renegotiated"
Why do we want a stray hello to terminate existing adjacency?
Thanks & Regards
Nitin
-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing List [mailto:OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Sunil
Patro
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:24 AM
To: OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: Detecting router id change in p2p-over-lan connection
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for all the feedback.
Can I safely assume that the final behavior is what Acee's recommended
paragraph says below?
"If the system ID or the router ID in an incoming hello packet
doesn't match the the system ID or router ID for an established
adjacency
over a p2p-over-lan circuit, the packet MUST be discarded. Futhermore,
if OSPF hello suppression as described in [DEMAND] is active for the
adjacency, it MUST be terminated and renegotiated."
Thanks,
Sunil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mailing List [mailto:OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of
Naiming
> Shen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:43 PM
> To: OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
> Subject: Re: Detecting router id change in p2p-over-lan connection
>
> Hello Acee,
>
> Your suggested paragraph looks fine with me.
>
> Even though this sentence assumes there is really a
> router-id change from a DC neighbor. A router probably
> should send a 'neighbor probing' [RFC 3883], if no
> response, then reset the adjacency and start
> the renegotiation; otherwise it should still ignore
> the new join on the p2p-over-lan link.
>
> But I would consider router-id change over a demand
> circuit over a p2p-over-lan on OSPF link a
> 'misconfiguration';-) so it does not matter too much.
> Your version is fine.
>
> thanks.
> - Naiming
>
> Acee Lindem said the following on 02/21/2006 02:47 PM:
> > Hello Naiming,
> >
> > Naiming Shen wrote:
> >
> >> Acee Lindem said the following on 02/21/2006 06:04 AM:
> >>
> >>> Naiming Shen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Agree with Dave's argument, and this is the same idea as in the
> >>>> current draft of p2p-over-lan (section 4.5):
> >>>>
> >>>> ... If the system ID or the
> >>>> router ID of incoming hello packet does not match the system
ID or
> >>>> the router ID of already established adjacency over this
> >>>> p2p-over-lan
> >>>> circuit, it MUST discard the packet. The implementation should
> offer
> >>>> logging and debugging information of the above events.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we need to change anything here?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Naiming,
> >>>
> >>> Given that this situation can happen in the case of
misconfiguration
> or
> >>> router-ID change, I wouldn't optimize for the former. Especially
> >>> considering Kalyan's point that if hello's are suppressed, the
> >>> router-id change
> >>> will either not be recognized or require additional logic. I'd
vote
> >>> to either
> >>> leave it unspecified (consistent with RFC 2328's omission of
router-id
> >>> change P2P link handling) or discard the old neighbor and bring up
> >>> an adjacency with the new (which is what at least one
implementation
> >>> does
> >>> today).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Acee,
> >>
> >> The original idea in the draft was to prevent multiple routers
joinning
> >> onto the same LAN rather than handing the router-ID change from the
> >> same router. Even through there is a side effect to it.
> >>
> >> For the router-ID change issue. If one is willing to change
router-ID
> >> or system-ID during normal operation, there are more things broken
> >> and there is nothing wrong to wait until the current adjacent
timeout.
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> If the hello is suppressed over the link, then the behaviour is not
> >> bounded by this paragraph since it does not say the purpose is to
> >> detect neighbor router-id change.
> >
> >
> > I disagree here. It says "MUST discard packet". That sounds pretty
> > bounding to me :^).
> >
> >> Also there is little reason to
> >> suppress a hello over p2p-over-lan links. Thus I don't think
> >> router-id is an issue with this sentence.
> >
> >
> > I agree - but there is nothing in this draft or RFC 1793 that
precludes
> it.
> >
> >>
> >> Since p2p-over-lan is different from normal p2p circuit that
multiple
> >> routers can easily join the same LAN unintentionally. If we ignore
> >> the new station to join, then we can prevent the adjacency constant
> >> flapping(this does not happen to normal p2p link), the worst it can
> >> happen is slow to handle router-id change as mentioned above, which
> >> is a non issue. Thus I think it's a good thing to ignore the extra
> >> adjacency joinning. This sentence does not govern the normal p2p
link
> >> behaviour so the implementation is ok(even prefered) to reset the
> >> existing adjacency on a normal p2p link. Thus I don't think we
> >> should say we must reset the current adjacency for p2p-over-lan.
> >>
> >> My preference of this sentence in the draft is with this order:
> >>
> >> - leave it as is
> >> - change the MUST to SHOULD
> >> - remove the router-id related sentence
> >
> >
> > How about leave it "almost" as is:
> >
> > If the system ID or the router ID in an incoming hello packet
> doesn't
> > match the the system ID or router ID for an established
adjacency
> over
> > a p2p-over-lan circuit, the packet MUST be discarded.
Futhermore,
> > if OSPF hello suppression as described in [DEMAND] is active for
the
> > adjacency, it MUST be terminated and renegotiated.
> >
> > [DEMAND] Moy, J., "Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits",
> > RFC 1793, April 1995.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> >> thanks.
> >> - Naiming
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Acee
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Acee
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks.
> >>>> - Naiming
> >>>>
> >>>> Dave Katz said the following on 02/20/2006 08:53 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> RFC2328 is silent on what to do if you see a different router ID
on
> >>>>> a P2P link; if you take it literally, you will create two
> >>>>> adjacencies (temporarily), advertise both in your router LSA,
and
> >>>>> your network will most likely black hole traffic until one of
them
> >>>>> times out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On real P2P links, this will suffice (if you don't mind a
network
> >>>>> outage for the dead time of the old adjacency) and things will
> >>>>> eventually stabilize since it is "impossible" (cough) two get
two
> >>>>> neighbors in 2Way. The fact that it is underspecified doesn't
> >>>>> matter that much.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the P2P-over-LAN case, there needs to be a mechanism to try
to
> >>>>> do something useful if there turn out to be more than two
routers
> >>>>> on the link. I don't think it's reasonable to say "gee it's
> >>>>> misconfigured, we don't care what happens to the network."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems to me that there are two possible cases, namely, use
the
> >>>>> old adjacency until it times out (effectively ignoring the
hellos
> >>>>> from the new guy) or to form an adjacency with the new guy (and
> >>>>> blow away or otherwise ignore the old guy.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The first case has the advantage of stability and
simplicity--the
> >>>>> third router that shows up for the party will be ignored by both
> >>>>> parties. There is a potential for a circle of one-way
adjacencies
> >>>>> to stabilize, but this will still be stable (there won't be a
> >>>>> usable adjacency across the subnetwork.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second case has the advantage that it adapts more quickly
when
> >>>>> something changes. Some implementations already do this for the
> >>>>> pure P2P case. However, it is destabilizing in the
> >>>>> misconfiguration case, as the router will flap its router LSA
each
> >>>>> time another Hello is received. Probably the only reasonable
way
> >>>>> out would be to detect the flap and then choose one neighbor
and
> >>>>> stick to it, ignoring the other (which degenerates into the
first
> >>>>> case.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given all of this, I'd propose that the right thing to do is the
> >>>>> first case, and suffer through the dead time (or use BFD and
> >>>>> suffer through the detection time.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (A third possible case would be to actually bring up the
adjacency
> >>>>> and end up running full-mesh multipoint, which would probably
even
> >>>>> work, but would be butt ugly.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --Dave
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 20, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Kalyan Bade wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Acee,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This might not work if the interface is defined as demand
> circuit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Good point - We're in the process of discussing whether this
> >>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>> should be in the
> >>>>>>>> draft. Possibly, handling detection of a router-id change on
a
> P2P
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> over
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LAN link
> >>>>>>>> differently than a normal P2P link may be a bad idea.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How about bringing down the neighbor (rather than ignoring)
when
> >>>>>>> a third
> >>>>>>> neighbor on a P2P over LAN sends a new hello? This creates
> >>>>>>> unnecessary
> >>>>>>> flaps, but again having more than 2 routers on a p2p LAN is a
> >>>>>>> misconfig.
> >>>>>>> Atleast, the processing will be similar to a regular p2p
> interface.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> That would be fine and consistent with what most routers do on
> >>>>>> normal P2P links. I think the
> >>>>>> P2P over LAN specific router-ID change processing should be
> >>>>>> removed from the draft.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Acee
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Kalyan.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>