Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling-04
Matt Griswold <grizz@20c.com> Thu, 21 September 2017 00:13 UTC
Return-Path: <grizz@20c.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0AF1321BB for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=20c-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4b0j915KTgeF for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com (mail-it0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 770AA13209C for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id r131so3546422itc.1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=20c-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7SzDpcE+iE8X9sHsZeJRlOvg0xO5+9Zwx5kvjSQGcUM=; b=lcFfXLYHq19mZHihvnq0RL7gMgi6WNEuHR+SoSWp7VMjIryJUhGmJ2/fTBbhdTB1Ao /ru9EfTKAFl7rdcmhjIRGtSpUfkkEDCQlSkrnQbMPHvq4SBebuQpp/IFKafr6roERh3q 8jKNtezb7iCsnswJTdec0YCtWHMKhaJ+VQJhHvssP6olaKBeEx2RhHpn+W7NL0SSLXkm oHpfXGJ1eMrkz31XYnsyWIQk/dT4w9zQISjY/vqxy7eEJPEx7F42xqNYPrupltgMHNjr Pa+t/OT9fM/VAiMJqKtzCjr6FdF3FExl4HgMuHzMoXLd1tR3I6DVnl2S5WYckvcZiWOC Gmxw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7SzDpcE+iE8X9sHsZeJRlOvg0xO5+9Zwx5kvjSQGcUM=; b=nBaaZxGtY5brrtgRbxSiVrVQbtrZL3H/LSomy2Cj2NX5azU9WmCzvttpixEBNEqsce eFwS6TmK6tQTmE1v71SdwwHU67M2zWj65uUZkp9KV6o2dloZSuP5ZzqrEvWC1IgXyfKo 8Ysc/gD1xMm4vN8doNkZijOgp/ryhGf1hNIMekyNAQCSUpr1pCVEU1ltEJfj8i1e+W7h lXKafrE+JRGEhH4o+w9dWcEj2ze8Z/rYQy5ZnLTDF0/1snvbnCfTmagc9CkGL+BCSvWq Wy3aKJ0Ul/G95nGA0X9nSFEVv2mDS6BYqN3PvMana2OAJd3WgexyK8NUuedDz4RmsFAk aTRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjFvJ3yVL7QKmM1f/N/ix/1yx5KqpGB77PiYuopgByJe6oj5kuC KLtmU0hWJq13EQgR1tfuZbZf4Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDl1x1+St/yjb6ux68GUCrUcJg98PF/kAww6MKr+FTb+ZAEgzwD0UF0n/5tfQfxCJpYFJi7Kw==
X-Received: by 10.36.84.82 with SMTP id t79mr5769018ita.98.1505952835688; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x0r (97-83-204-249.dhcp.eucl.wi.charter.com. [97.83.204.249]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n67sm75751ion.64.2017.09.20.17.13.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:13:53 +0000
From: Matt Griswold <grizz@20c.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170921001353.260a3439@x0r>
In-Reply-To: <150579629891.15651.17244647188709040958@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <150579629891.15651.17244647188709040958@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/LNevqMVPqD0gPuYZEsFn5owIh6k>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:13:58 -0000
* Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> [170918 21:44 -0700]: > Minor Issues: > ------------- > > > 3.1.1. Maintenance Considerations > > > > Initiators of the administrative shutdown could consider using > > Graceful Shutdown [I-D.ietf-grow-bgp-gshut] to facilitate smooth > > drainage of traffic prior to session tear down, and the Shutdown > > Communication [I-D.ietf-idr-shutdown]... > > This strikes me as vague. "Could consider"? Surely if this is > a BCP, they MUST use some mechanisms and perhaps SHOULD use these > particular mechanisms. Otherwise the document doesn't specify > anything much at all for this case. Graceful Shutdown is just one of multiple ways an Operator can accomplish that. > > 3.2. Involuntary BGP Session Teardown Recommendations > ... > > In the absence notifications from the lower layer (e.g. ethernet > > link down) consistent with the planned maintenance activities in a > > switched layer-2 fabric, the Caretaker of the fabric could choose > > to cull BGP sessions on behalf of the Operators connected to the > > fabric. > > This seems incomplete. Firstly, I'm assuming that it should start > "In the absence of notifications...". Fixed! > Secondly, if there are no fault indications, what causes the > Caretaker to cull sessions? What's the trigger? Is the Caretaker > supposed to know by magic that layer 2 maintenance is planned? The Caretaker controls the layer 2 network, so yes, would do this as part of the maintenance process. > ... > > In this scenario, BGP Session Culling is accomplished through the > > application of a combined layer-3 and layer-4 packet filter > > deployed in the switched fabric itself. > > Please add "as described in the next sub-section" because otherwise > the reader can easily be confused. Added. > > 3.2.1. Packet Filter Considerations > > > > The following considerations apply to the packet filter design: > > > > o The packet filter MUST only affect BGP traffic specific to the > > layer-2 fabric, i.e. forming part of the control plane of the > > system described, rather than multihop BGP traffic which merely > > transits > > That's a goal, but it doesn't tell me how to achieve the goal. > What packet signature tells me which packets are specific to the > fabric? I suspect this might overlap with the last bullet - if so, > you might consider re-ordering the bullets. > ... > > o The packet filter MUST affect all relevant Address Family > > Identifiers > > Define "relevant". Removed "relevant". > And in Appendix A, explain precisely how the example prefixes are > used: what makes them relevant? Are they normally announced by BGP to > all the IXP's BGP peers? They are the IXP LAN addresses, as explained above the examples. Thanks for your review!
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-g… Brian Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Matt Griswold
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Matt Griswold
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [Gen-art] [GROW] Genart last call review of d… Nick Hilliard