Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Discussion about BGP autoconf requirements in DC

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

>
> > I am not stating that we should or should not but do we have full
> > agreement that DC case must cover any other BGP peering except p2p and
> > lo2lo over p2p ? Is there a real requirement to discover your peers
> > few IP hops away ?
>
> how do we socialize this question?  maybe we, as the dt, put out a short
> goals statement on idr and see if it flies?
>

It would be interesting to first get a sense how dt feels about it ?

We already divided DC from WAN/IXP spaces.

For WAN/IXP clearly multihop is a requirement. But IMHO for DC it is not.
Anyone has a different opinion and could explain why ?

/* I am not sure how do we probe for such questions even within dt :) */

> As far as md5, A0, XYZ to validate if you are legitimate peer this
> > really is not an autodiscovery part. IMO it should be part of
> > preconfigured template.
>
> having a bit of infosec blood, i am a bit more concerned.  but you are
> right, it's tough; either a leap of faith or a bleedin' infrastructure;
> see draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing.


By all means you know much more in this space. My comment was just coming
from past experience when we designed auto CE peering to PE via BGP for ATT
they just insisted about two features: prefix range check and MD5 pre cfg.