Message-ID: <CAMs_D1-jBR1PxqcBXg1Mb+838zr360qRPS0PjWm6+QQ6n3q5Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 14:12:22 -0700
From:	Vivek Venkatraman <vivek@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemming@...cade.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/8] iproute2: Add support for the RTA_VIA attribute

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Vivek Venkatraman <vivek@...ulusnetworks.com> writes:
>
>> At the edge, when doing IPoMPLS, we'll be imposing a set of labels on
>> top of the packet rather than replacing, but the same semantics can be
>> applied because the destination address is now different and becomes a
>> label stack.
>
> Exactly how this will happen is an open question.  The hard part is we
> need something light weight enough that we can scale to 1 million
> routes, aka a full routing table.
>
> Network devices consume much too much memory to contemplate having a
> different network device for each of 1 million different routes.
>

Agree and this is the exact point I had raised about your initial
proposal to inject IP into an MPLS tunnel.

> The transform infrastructure (xfrm) that is used for ipsec looks
> attractive for imposing tunnels but it is clumsy, and does not map well
> to the kinds of tunnels IPoMPLS traffic needs.
>
> Having something in the ipv4 and ipv6 fib entry say a pointer or a 32bit
> key that refers to a struct mpls_route to impose looks like what we want
> int he abstract.  What the userspace interface for that implemenation is
> something that I do not see clearly.  Ideally we build a userspace
> interface that works not only for MPLS but also for other tunnel types
> like IPIP, GRE, etc.   This would allow not only MPLS tunnels but other
> tunnel types to be supported up to the full routing table size.
>
> Perhaps a new attribute RTA_ENCAP that encodes a structure with
> a tunnel type and enough information to encode the tunnel header.
> I would have to make a survey of the existing tunnel types to see
> if there is enough of a pattern an option that works for multiple
> protocols could actually be achieved.
>
> Using a tunnel that is not a network device and as such does not need
> to keep packet counters looks like it will scale much better than our
> other options, even with the best memory usage simplications I can
> imagine for network devices.  Maintenance of per cpu counters (which are
> necessary for performance) requires a non-trivial amount of memory and
> as such are much harder to scale.
>

Yes. I believe there are 2 use cases to consider:

a) When MPLS LSPs specify a labeled-path and are not a tunnel per se.
This would be the case when they are setup hop-by-hop to following
routing, as would be the case using a protocol such as LDP or BGP. In
this case, the label stack is really just an encap and there is no
separate network device associated with each LSP (and certainly not
with any application/inner label such as a VPN label or a PWE label).

I believe this will be the common use-case in the data center and in
certain situations in provider networks.

b) When MPLS LSPs actually represent a tunnel interface. This would be
the case when they are traffic-engineered using a protocol such as
RSVP-TE. A network device would be associated with this tunnel and
specify the tunnel encapsulation (one or more labels) but the labels
imposed by the application would still come from the corresponding IP
or L2 constructs (e.g., fib entry).

This use-case is likely to be seen more in provider networks than in
the data center.

We have been looking into (a) and it is along the lines you mention
above (fib entry refers to mpls_route), but not flushed out enough to
post and seek opinion. In terms of the user interface (iproute2
commands), it is along the lines of my examples, though I have clearly
overlooked the point you make below about RTA_NEWDST.

>> One thing to note is that the destination address replaced/imposed
>> could change based on the path selected, when there is ECMP. So, I
>> propose that the iproute2 syntax of "as [to]" be reconsidered for
>> MPLS, otherwise we'll end up with something like the following when
>> this is extended to setup IPoMPLS direct forwarding with ECMP:
>>
>> ip route add 147.1.1.0/24 nexthop as to 400/2230 via inet 192.168.1.1
>> dev eth0 nexthop as to 600/2400 via inet 192.168.2.1 dev eth1
>
> That does not work with the semantics of the RTA_NEWDST message require
> the new address to be in the same address family as the old address.
> So it is useful for NATing IPv4 or IPv6 with routes (if you are
> so inclined) but it is not useful for imposing an mpls header.
>

I had overlooked this. I think now that it would be handy to allow the
address family to be specified for the new address so it can be used
in both cases (edge and transit). A keyword like "label" could
automatically imply AF_MPLS for the new address and a new application
could follow suit.

>> Instead, if we use the specifier "label", we'll get:
>>
>> ip route add 147.1.1.0/24 nexthop via inet 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 label
>> 400/2230 nexthop via inet 192.168.2.1 dev eth1 label 600/2400
>>
>> The transit case (label swapping) would look like:
>>
>> ip -f mpls route add 400 via inet 192.168.1.10 dev eth0 label 500
>>
>> The syntax can then be better extended to specify a label operation
>> such as "pop" which would be needed when performing ultimate hop pop
>> (UHP) and then lookup/forward based on underlying label stack or IP
>> header.
>
> Pop is the case where where the RTA_NEWDST attribute is empty (or
> unspecified).
>
> From an mpls perspective the RTA_DST label is always popped (if it
> matches) and the RTA_NEWDST label stack is always pushed.
>

The idea was to pop and do a subsequent lookup rather than pop and
forward. This would be an alternative to forwarding to loopback device
in order to lookup on inner labels.

>> A new application besides MPLS that needs to modify the destination
>> address would use its own keyword but encode using the RTA_NEWDST
>> attribute.
>
> Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists