Support bgp l3vpn over srv6 te policy #17609

guoguojia2021 · 2024-12-09T03:19:17Z

Add SID list support IPv6 address.

router2(config-sr-te)# segment-list test_srv6
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 10 ipv6-address
X:X::X:X IPv6 address
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 10 ipv6-address 100:1::1
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 20 ipv6-address 200:1::1
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 30 mpls label
(16-1048575) Label Value
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 30 mpls label 100
% Configuration failed.

Error type: validation
Error description: The Segment List(test_srv6) Type must be SRv6!
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)#
router2(config-sr-te)# segment-list test_mpls
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 10 mpls label 100
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 20 mpls label 200
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 30 ipv6-address 1:1::1
% Configuration failed.

Error type: validation
Error description: The Segment List(test_mpls) Type must be MPLS!
router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)#

router2# configure
router2(config)# seg
router2(config-sr)# traffic-eng
router2(config-sr-te)# policy color 100 endpoint
A.B.C.D SR Policy endpoint IPv4 address
X:X::X:X SR Policy endpoint IPv6 address
router2(config-sr-te)# policy color 100 endpoint 1.1.1.1

router2(config-sr-te)# policy color 100 endpoint 1.1.1.1
router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 1 name mpls explicit segment-list test_mpls

router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 1 name mpls explicit segment-list test_mpls
router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 2 name srv6 explicit segment-list test_srv6
% Configuration failed.

Error type: validation
Error description: The Segment List type(2) and Policy type(1) must match!
router2(config-sr-te-policy)# exit
router2(config-sr-te)# policy color 200 endpoint 1:1::1
router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 1 name srv6 explicit segment-list test_srv6
router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 2 name mpls explicit segment-list test_mpls
% Configuration failed.

Error type: validation
Error description: The Segment List type(1) and Policy type(2) must match!

BGP L3vpn over SRv6-TE policy
config:

segment-routing
traffic-eng
segment-list a
index 10 ipv6-address 100:1::100
index 20 ipv6-address 200:1::200
exit
policy color 100 endpoint 1::1
candidate-path preference 1 name a explicit segment-list a
exit
exit
exit
!
end

show:
router2# show sr-te policy detail

Endpoint: 1::1 Color: 100 Name: BSID: - Status: Active Type: SRV6

Preference: 1 Name: a Type: explicit Segment-List: a Protocol-Origin: Local

router2# show bgp ipv4 vpn
BGP table version is 2, local router ID is 2.2.2.2, vrf id 0
Default local pref 100, local AS 2
Route Distinguisher: 1:1
*> 192.168.11.0/24 1::1 0 0 1 ?
UN=1::1 EC{1:1 Color:01:100} label=16 sid=2001:db8:1:1:: sid_structure=[40,24,16,0] type=bgp, subtype=0
*> 192.168.15.0/24 1::1 0 0 1 ?
UN=1::1 EC{1:1 Color:01:100} label=16 sid=2001:db8:1:1:: sid_structure=[40,24,16,0] type=bgp, subtype=0

Displayed 2 routes and 2 total paths
router2# show bgp ipv4 vpn 192.168.11.0
BGP routing table entry for 1:1:192.168.11.0/24, version 1
not allocated
Paths: (1 available, best #1)
Advertised to non peer-group peers:
1::1
1
0.0.0.0 (metric 1024) from 1::1 (1.1.1.1)
Origin incomplete, metric 0, valid, external, best (First path received)
Relay-Nexthop(ip): gate 3fff:172:20:20::1, if eth0,
Relay-Nexthop(tunnel): srv6-tunnel:1::1|100(endpoint|color),
Extended Community: RT:1:1 Color:01:100
Remote label: 16
Remote SID: 2001:db8:1:1::
Last update: Sat Dec 7 04:27:16 2024
router2# show ip route vrf Vrf1 192.168.11.0
Routing entry for 192.168.11.0/24
Known via "bgp", distance 20, metric 0, vrf Vrf1, best
Last update 00:01:31 ago
_**1::1(vrf default) (recursive), label 16, seg6 100:1::100,200:1::200, srv6(endpoint|color):1::1|100, weight 1

fe80::a8c1:abff:fe5c:7e19, via eth3(vrf default), label 16, seg6 100:1::100,200:1::200, srv6(endpoint|color):fe80::a8c1:abff:fe5c:7e19|0, weight 1
fe80::a8c1:abff:feb5:6de9, via eth4(vrf default), label 16, seg6 100:1::100,200:1::200, srv6(endpoint|color):fe80::a8c1:abff:feb5:6de9|0, weight 1**_

ton31337

Please reuse IPV[46]_* macros to keep the code maintable;
Unified config for new topotests is mandatory;
Some minor nits/cleanups for the code yet;
frrbot + verify check also must be vanished.

tests/topotests/bgp_srv6l3vpn_te_policy/ce1/bgpd.conf

tests/topotests/bgp_srv6l3vpn_te_policy/p1/bgpd.conf

tests/topotests/bgp_srv6l3vpn_te_policy/p2/bgpd.conf

tests/topotests/bgp_srv6l3vpn_te_policy/pe1/zebra.conf

bgpd/bgp_nht.c

bgpd/bgp_nexthop.c

bgpd/bgp_nht.c

ton31337 · 2024-12-10T07:29:04Z

bgpd/bgp_nht.c

-			if ((path->type == ZEBRA_ROUTE_VNC) ||
-			    (path->type == ZEBRA_ROUTE_VNC_DIRECT))
+	if (bnc->srte_color) {
+		LIST_FOREACH (path, &(bnc->paths), te_nh_thread) {


Is this basically the same as LIST_FOREACH (path, &(bnc->paths), nh_thread)? Then can we just move to the separate function and reuse? Because now we have lots of duplicated stuff + the indentation is bad at some level (due to nesting).

Sometimes, two BNC are needed, for example, one route has a color while the other route does not, and they have the same nexthop, the route with a color select SRv6 TE policy, and the other route select SRv6 BE

for better readability, if you indent a huge part of code, the best would be to add a separate commit: put the code to indent in a separate function. Then, the next commit does the indentation with only the called function.

pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-10T20:37:19Z

Hi @guoguojia2021 , thanks for contribution.
Actually, there is a pull request #15057 already present.
It will be nice to compare both implems to see which one is best suited for our needs.

github-actions · 2024-12-16T15:10:10Z

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

Signed-off-by: guozhongfeng.gzf <[email protected]>

pguibert6WIND

There are interesting stuff:

pathd handling with srv6 segmen-list seems fine to me

however, some doubts

the te approach in bgp ( versus the other pull request and the implementation of nht in pathd and zebra). I feel that it complexifies BGP a lot, whereas BGP should be transparent to that. a design document in doc/developer would be welcome.
some commit logs are too dense, and should be split to better understand what needs to be done

pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T16:37:44Z

ospf6d/ospf6_zebra.c

@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ void ospf6_zebra_import_default_route(struct ospf6 *ospf6, bool unreg)
 {
 	struct prefix prefix = {};
 	int command;
+	uint8_t flags = 0;



use an uint32_t instead, if you want to be consistent with the zclient_send_rnh API

pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T16:38:32Z

ospfd/ospf_zebra.c

@@ -1473,6 +1473,7 @@ void ospf_zebra_import_default_route(struct ospf *ospf, bool unreg)
 {
 	struct prefix prefix = {};
 	int command;
+	uint8_t flags = 0;



same remark: uint32_t

pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T16:38:49Z

pbrd/pbr_zebra.c

@@ -425,6 +425,7 @@ void pbr_send_rnh(struct nexthop *nhop, bool reg)
 {
 	uint32_t command;
 	struct prefix p;
+	uint8_t flags = 0;



pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T16:39:21Z

sharpd/sharp_zebra.c

@@ -623,13 +623,17 @@ void sharp_zebra_nexthop_watch(struct prefix *p, vrf_id_t vrf_id, bool import, b
 {
 	int command = ZEBRA_NEXTHOP_REGISTER;
 	safi_t safi = mrib ? SAFI_MULTICAST : SAFI_UNICAST;
+	uint8_t flags = 0;



pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T16:39:28Z

pimd/pim_nht.c

@@ -43,11 +43,13 @@ static void pim_sendmsg_zebra_rnh(struct pim_instance *pim, struct zclient *zcli
 {
 	struct prefix p;
 	int ret;
+	uint8_t flags = 0;



bgpd/bgp_nexthop.c

pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T17:03:55Z

bgpd/bgp_nht.c

 				   bnc->bgp->name_pretty, bnc->flags,
 				   bnc->ifindex_ipv6_ll, bnc->path_count,
 				   bnc->nht_info, &bnc->resolved_prefix);
 	}

+	if (srte_color) {
+		if (make_prefix(afi, pi, &p, true) < 0)


what about MPLS ? that means srte mpls will bring a new context that we don't need. can we protect it ?

this design puts the intelligence in BGP rather than in ZEBRA. before, MPLS TE was handled in ZEBRA, and now we decide to use bgp nht for srv6.
not sure I adhere to this approach. (I would need more to know about the advantages of choosing this).

in the separate pull request , we added nexthop tracking to pathd, and in that way, we don't need to modify BGP.

pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T17:04:23Z

bgpd/bgp_nht.c

+		}
+		if (pi && srv6_route)
+			SET_FLAG(pi->flags, BGP_PATH_SRV6_TE);
+	} else {


the flag SRV6_TE is present; then someone can ask : what abut MPLS_TE flag ?

pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T17:06:06Z

bgpd/bgp_mplsvpn.c

@@ -2691,6 +2699,7 @@ void vpn_leak_no_retain(struct bgp *to_bgp, struct bgp *vpn_from, afi_t afi)
 					continue;

 				bgp_unlink_nexthop(bpi);
+				bgp_unlink_te_nexthop(bpi);
 				bgp_rib_remove(bn, bpi, bpi->peer, afi, safi);


on a long term, I think SRv6 could be applied to not only L3VPN. so it should be better to put bgp_unlink_te_nexthop into bgp_unlink _nexthop.

pguibert6WIND · 2024-12-19T17:10:33Z

bgpd/bgp_nht.c

-			if ((path->type == ZEBRA_ROUTE_VNC) ||
-			    (path->type == ZEBRA_ROUTE_VNC_DIRECT))
+	if (bnc->srte_color) {
+		LIST_FOREACH (path, &(bnc->paths), te_nh_thread) {


for better readability, if you indent a huge part of code, the best would be to add a separate commit: put the code to indent in a separate function. Then, the next commit does the indentation with only the called function.

guoguojia2021 · 2024-12-20T02:56:41Z

Thank you very much for your comments @ton31337 @pguibert6WIND

This is the HLD
https://github.com/eddieruan-alibaba/SONiC/blob/eruan-srv6p/doc/srv6/srv6_policy.md#color -only-policy-use-case

We will complete it in two steps,

Support SRv6 TE policy
Support ECMP paths(multiple candidate paths with the same preferences)
Support ECMP dependency on this PR.
Add PIC support in the srv6 VPN scenario. #16879

command: router2(config-sr-te)# segment-list test_srv6 router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 10 ipv6-address X:X::X:X IPv6 address router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 10 ipv6-address 100:1::1 router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 20 ipv6-address 200:1::1 router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 30 mpls label (16-1048575) Label Value router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 30 mpls label 100 % Configuration failed. Error type: validation Error description: The Segment List(test_srv6) Type must be SRv6! router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# router2(config-sr-te)# segment-list test_mpls router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 10 mpls label 100 router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 20 mpls label 200 router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# index 30 ipv6-address 1:1::1 % Configuration failed. Error type: validation Error description: The Segment List(test_mpls) Type must be MPLS! router2(config-sr-te-segment-list)# router2# configure router2(config)# seg router2(config-sr)# traffic-eng router2(config-sr-te)# policy color 100 endpoint A.B.C.D SR Policy endpoint IPv4 address X:X::X:X SR Policy endpoint IPv6 address router2(config-sr-te)# policy color 100 endpoint 1.1.1.1 <cr> router2(config-sr-te)# policy color 100 endpoint 1.1.1.1 router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 1 name mpls explicit segment-list test_mpls <cr> router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 1 name mpls explicit segment-list test_mpls router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 2 name srv6 explicit segment-list test_srv6 % Configuration failed. Error type: validation Error description: The Segment List type(2) and Policy type(1) must match! router2(config-sr-te-policy)# exit router2(config-sr-te)# policy color 200 endpoint 1:1::1 router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 1 name srv6 explicit segment-list test_srv6 router2(config-sr-te-policy)# candidate-path preference 2 name mpls explicit segment-list test_mpls % Configuration failed. Error type: validation Error description: The Segment List type(1) and Policy type(2) must match! config: segment-routing traffic-eng segment-list test_srv6 index 10 ipv6-address 100:1::1 index 20 ipv6-address 200:1::1 exit segment-list test_mpls index 10 mpls label 100 index 20 mpls label 200 exit policy color 100 endpoint 1.1.1.1 candidate-path preference 1 name mpls explicit segment-list test_mpls exit policy color 200 endpoint 1:1::1 candidate-path preference 1 name srv6 explicit segment-list test_srv6 exit exit exit ! end show: router2# show sr-te policy detail Endpoint: 1.1.1.1 Color: 100 Name: BSID: - Status: Inactive Type: MPLS * Preference: 1 Name: mpls Type: explicit Segment-List: test_mpls Protocol-Origin: Local Endpoint: 1:1::1 Color: 200 Name: BSID: - Status: Active Type: SRV6 * Preference: 1 Name: srv6 Type: explicit Segment-List: test_srv6 Protocol-Origin: Local router2# Signed-off-by: guozhongfeng.gzf <[email protected]>

@NNN

config: segment-routing traffic-eng segment-list a index 10 ipv6-address 100:1::100 index 20 ipv6-address 200:1::200 exit policy color 100 endpoint 1::1 candidate-path preference 1 name a explicit segment-list a exit exit exit ! end show: router2# show sr-te policy detail Endpoint: 1::1 Color: 100 Name: BSID: - Status: Active Type: SRV6 * Preference: 1 Name: a Type: explicit Segment-List: a Protocol-Origin: Local router2# show bgp ipv4 vpn BGP table version is 2, local router ID is 2.2.2.2, vrf id 0 Default local pref 100, local AS 2 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, u unsorted, * valid, > best, = multipath, i internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, R Removed Nexthop codes: @NNN nexthop's vrf id, < announce-nh-self Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path Route Distinguisher: 1:1 *> 192.168.11.0/24 1::1 0 0 1 ? UN=1::1 EC{1:1 Color:01:100} label=16 sid=2001:db8:1:1:: sid_structure=[40,24,16,0] type=bgp, subtype=0 *> 192.168.15.0/24 1::1 0 0 1 ? UN=1::1 EC{1:1 Color:01:100} label=16 sid=2001:db8:1:1:: sid_structure=[40,24,16,0] type=bgp, subtype=0 Displayed 2 routes and 2 total paths router2# show bgp ipv4 vpn 192.168.11.0 BGP routing table entry for 1:1:192.168.11.0/24, version 1 not allocated Paths: (1 available, best #1) Advertised to non peer-group peers: 1::1 1 0.0.0.0 (metric 1024) from 1::1 (1.1.1.1) Origin incomplete, metric 0, valid, external, best (First path received) Relay-Nexthop(ip): gate 3fff:172:20:20::1, if eth0, Relay-Nexthop(tunnel): srv6-tunnel:1::1|100(endpoint|color), Extended Community: RT:1:1 Color:01:100 Remote label: 16 Remote SID: 2001:db8:1:1:: Last update: Sat Dec 7 04:27:16 2024 router2# show ip route vrf Vrf1 192.168.11.0 Routing entry for 192.168.11.0/24 Known via "bgp", distance 20, metric 0, vrf Vrf1, best Last update 00:01:31 ago 1::1(vrf default) (recursive), label 16, seg6 100:1::100,200:1::200, srv6(endpoint|color):1::1|100, weight 1 * fe80::a8c1:abff:fe5c:7e19, via eth3(vrf default), label 16, seg6 100:1::100,200:1::200, srv6(endpoint|color):fe80::a8c1:abff:fe5c:7e19|0, weight 1 * fe80::a8c1:abff:feb5:6de9, via eth4(vrf default), label 16, seg6 100:1::100,200:1::200, srv6(endpoint|color):fe80::a8c1:abff:feb5:6de9|0, weight 1 frr@router2:/$ ip route show vrf Vrf1 192.168.11.0/24 nhid 74 proto bgp metric 20 nexthop encap seg6 mode encap segs 2 [ 100:1::100 200:1::200 ] via inet6 fe80::a8c1:abff:fe5c:7e19 dev eth3 weight 1 nexthop encap seg6 mode encap segs 2 [ 100:1::100 200:1::200 ] via inet6 fe80::a8c1:abff:feb5:6de9 dev eth4 weight 1 192.168.15.0/24 nhid 74 proto bgp metric 20 nexthop encap seg6 mode encap segs 2 [ 100:1::100 200:1::200 ] via inet6 fe80::a8c1:abff:fe5c:7e19 dev eth3 weight 1 nexthop encap seg6 mode encap segs 2 [ 100:1::100 200:1::200 ] via inet6 fe80::a8c1:abff:feb5:6de9 dev eth4 weight 1 192.168.23.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.23.1 192.168.25.0/24 dev eth5 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.25.1 frr@router2:/$ Signed-off-by: guozhongfeng.gzf <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: guozhongfeng.gzf <[email protected]>

frrbot bot added bgp documentation zebra labels Dec 9, 2024

guoguojia2021 closed this Dec 9, 2024

github-actions bot added master size/XXL rebase PR needs rebase labels Dec 9, 2024

guoguojia2021 reopened this Dec 9, 2024

guoguojia2021 changed the title ~~BGP l3vpn~~ Support bgp l3vpn over srv6 te policy Dec 9, 2024

guoguojia2021 force-pushed the srv6_te_policy branch 5 times, most recently from ec9c40d to d507421 Compare December 10, 2024 06:11

ton31337 reviewed Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

guoguojia2021 force-pushed the srv6_te_policy branch 4 times, most recently from 784c85a to 4844dc7 Compare December 10, 2024 12:48

pguibert6WIND self-assigned this Dec 10, 2024

pguibert6WIND self-requested a review December 10, 2024 20:36

pguibert6WIND removed their assignment Dec 10, 2024

guoguojia2021 force-pushed the srv6_te_policy branch from 4844dc7 to 0a91c99 Compare December 11, 2024 02:33

github-actions bot added the conflicts label Dec 16, 2024

guoguojia2021 force-pushed the srv6_te_policy branch from 0a91c99 to 3952496 Compare December 19, 2024 02:15

github-actions bot removed the conflicts label Dec 19, 2024

guoguojia2021 force-pushed the srv6_te_policy branch from 3952496 to ec2f4f9 Compare December 19, 2024 05:48

zebra: add sr te color in rnh register

8aa781b

Signed-off-by: guozhongfeng.gzf <[email protected]>

guoguojia2021 force-pushed the srv6_te_policy branch from ec2f4f9 to d43c35e Compare December 19, 2024 06:56

pguibert6WIND requested changes Dec 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

guoguojia2021 force-pushed the srv6_te_policy branch 2 times, most recently from 25e4f19 to c6377d2 Compare December 20, 2024 09:23

guoguojia2021 added 4 commits December 20, 2024 17:43

doc:pathd support IPv6 address SID list

f953363

Signed-off-by: guozhongfeng.gzf <[email protected]>

topotests:Add test fo bgp l3vpn over srv6 te policy

641da22

Signed-off-by: guozhongfeng.gzf <[email protected]>

guoguojia2021 force-pushed the srv6_te_policy branch from c6377d2 to 641da22 Compare December 20, 2024 09:45

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Support bgp l3vpn over srv6 te policy #17609

Support bgp l3vpn over srv6 te policy #17609

guoguojia2021 commented Dec 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ton31337 left a comment

ton31337 Dec 10, 2024

guoguojia2021 Dec 10, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND commented Dec 10, 2024

github-actions bot commented Dec 16, 2024

pguibert6WIND left a comment

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

pguibert6WIND Dec 19, 2024

guoguojia2021 commented Dec 20, 2024

Support bgp l3vpn over srv6 te policy #17609

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Support bgp l3vpn over srv6 te policy #17609

Conversation

guoguojia2021 commented Dec 9, 2024 • edited Loading

ton31337 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pguibert6WIND commented Dec 10, 2024

github-actions bot commented Dec 16, 2024

pguibert6WIND left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

guoguojia2021 commented Dec 20, 2024

guoguojia2021 commented Dec 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading