<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div style="color: black;">
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Hi Philippe,</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Based on the discussion, I believe vpn-policy is going to move under the bgp vrf instance config in the final syntax - we're just need to finalize syntax once vivek has his proposal ready.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">the bgp vrf instance Is already automatically associated with the zebra/kernel vrf via name matching. </p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Lou</p>
</div>
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 10pt 0;">On January 25, 2018 4:32:23 AM Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi Lou, Donald,<br><div dir="auto"><br></div>At first glance, the syntax proposed in [1] looks good.<br></div><div>Does that mean that VRF configured under BGP node ( vpn-policy or vrf-policy) will be automatically "connected" to ZEBRA VRF ?<br></div><div>Maybe an explicit additional command would make that relationship possible?<br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Le 23 janv. 2018 7:40 PM, "Lou Berger" <<a href="mailto:lberger@labn.net" target="_blank">lberger@labn.net</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail-m_1343688908358095074m_-790634244129510049quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi<div class="gmail-m_1343688908358095074m_-790634244129510049quoted-text"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/23/2018 12:09 PM, Philippe Guibert wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Hi Donald, Lou,<br>
<br>
I could not attend the meeting.<br>
Are there any notes, or presentation that could explain what will be the strategy with BGP ?<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
We're headed towards supporting VRF-lite route leaking and L3VPN over MPLS, with both using common RT and BGP VPN constructs. Donald taking the lead on the zebra additions and Paul Z doing the bgp code changes. Vivek is also looking at cli and will propose a revised syntax. The syntax Paul is currently looking towards can be found at the top of [1], but again this is not finalized.<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w_ie2tNXCgn0N3ZNFGYTK6lJkwMmk_XN5yz33MMNNqM/edit#" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/docume<wbr>nt/d/1w_ie2tNXCgn0N3ZNFGYTK6lJ<wbr>kwMmk_XN5yz33MMNNqM/edit#</a><br><div class="gmail-m_1343688908358095074m_-790634244129510049quoted-text"><br><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
On a separate work, I came to face the issue where I need to redirect flow to a specific VRF, based on route target input.<br>
I was wondering if that work was crossing or not.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
I suspect yes. How is the flow encapsulated over the core?<br></blockquote></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div>I am in progress of having FlowSpec Client into FRR. More information<br></div><div>Flowspec basically applies some kind of policy ( some rules describe which traffic, and what to do with) based on BGP Flowspec infomation.<br><br></div><div dir="auto">My setup is not finalised yet, I have the main traffic that is not encapsulated.<br>For security reasons, BGP receives a BGP Flowspec message, including an extended community that asks to redirect that traffic to a VRF.<br><br></div><div>I expect that BGP identifies the ZEBRA VRF, based on the incoming extended community ( made with Route Target).<br></div><div>I also expect that the RD and RT concepts do not cross BGP/ZEBRA borderline. I expect that the matchine VRF_ID will be contained in the ZAPI message.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Philippe<br><br><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail-m_1343688908358095074m_-790634244129510049quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Lou<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Philippe<div class="gmail-m_1343688908358095074m_-790634244129510049quoted-text"><br>
<br>
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Donald Sharp <<a href="mailto:sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com" target="_blank">sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com" target="_blank">sharpd@cumulusnetworks<wbr>.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
All -<br>
<br>
During discussions this morning w/ Lou we discovered that we are both<br>
working towards a BGP solution for Route Leaking. We have enough<br>
differences between our approaches that we need to spend some time<br>
consolidating our approach. The current plan is to have the meeting<br>
at 3:30 EDT this Friday Jan 19. If you would like to attend please<br>
let me know and I will put you on the invite for it.<br>
<br>
donald<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
dev mailing list<br></div>
<a href="mailto:dev@lists.frrouting.org" target="_blank">dev@lists.frrouting.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dev@lists.frrouting.org" target="_blank">dev@lists.frrouting.or<wbr>g</a>><br>
<a href="https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.frrouting.org/li<wbr>stinfo/dev</a><br>
<<a href="https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.frrouting.org/l<wbr>istinfo/dev</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>