Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling-04
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 21 September 2017 02:19 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 04FD6132944; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 PNdK1CyBoCra; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x236.google.com (mail-pg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]) (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 1FA3B1320DC; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b11so2722331pgn.12; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Az3sqUpHtSeRUo/Igh2nKvcadMxQQstZHY4DqXORPUo=; b=pza8daQNUi+lGhgoaR6qrQq7fvM8/iRJLBFJkesOlutWhpttuv46H4Fj4LcGYPH7o9 rWjjKwHaM41VgBDfIMPU2w5YXP8lMt6/zfOFR13JeYk+j64wi0lWUmSkBaJFPB0H3yxa O02nVcgH/wkyoCQ5EQeoNlwiK48mXsdSMVeILcxLlT3mD5go8zPdgmnrYeFHxyfpzITA C1WZyKKPMqfMe9iVVFPjy1FHbTcABcMrN0KXW1MixuRZK8qcj4E7cno7BTk/mOMsPxfc XiIdhmVMhlwSUMi3zK5HhJGl0ix3a2hMDosoK9xZq1D/fhGIfbIID1nCVatzWyMhYf/x EqYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Az3sqUpHtSeRUo/Igh2nKvcadMxQQstZHY4DqXORPUo=; b=Soa9nV6gLWBPYToMbJ2VGrCQnaNz0GT7AwqI9a/mxToEt+qD9lFnDC2pREf2wiekTP q+GMwIwgUJfccglw18c5mw6Jm13ciFxpzhrbe/XeF8ZSNlYBIOfQKrQWs9LrzuhF668R rz8+09RQO5z15+3zeeEEhBXpvkgH64bZjf9ixdj2/lDRQdJuevHnP1P0n40WxdEqy4B9 e39jj31SH2pKwafyqR4QTdH0DpDBpWVZvz4fOxUJRS0abLuA0FlCACBwGRH7C6J+oAOo 49BRE59ECrDyriJFdMRHueyjw3ygoK7EMjaDf6dIhzHP5h1/XFlyNt9Eb3iQJOCpWnRJ d/ZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgOM/l14ofqrAmw8edKePYrYgnhLfVb5azEWr5Gx9b0M6vhgzYu 8E4vvOub4YZ4aPVyv8dtIK274g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAnRf1Y4tMSU0pzEx+a7Rw9mlsMP+8BDfVumZIU975geATwzvarCRjHnPqRi1DmJYob1rmc6Q==
X-Received: by 10.101.70.203 with SMTP id n11mr4091125pgr.197.1505960366329; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3f51:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3f51:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c82sm305741pfe.172.2017.09.20.19.19.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: Matt Griswold <grizz@20c.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling.all@ietf.org
References: <150579629891.15651.17244647188709040958@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170921001353.260a3439@x0r>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5aedafdd-8cc6-8d25-e702-26b4beac15ea@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:19:29 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170921001353.260a3439@x0r>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/SJUsBxO3JWFHU82JsxabXEICBig>
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 02:19:29 -0000
On 21/09/2017 12:13, Matt Griswold wrote: > * 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. Understood, so perhaps it's a MAY not a SHOULD, but the text still really only seems to say "do the right thing" without saying what that is. To be honest the whole document is a bit like that - written for members of the club who know how to run BGP, rather than for a newcomer who wants to know how to run BGP. > >>> 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. Again: not clear to a newcomer. >> ... >>> 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. Yes, I realise that, but again you're assuming that the reader has a complete picture in her mind. Maybe there's actually a need for a scenario description in the Introduction, or at least a reminder that in normal operation, paths through the fabric in question may be known throughout the BGP realm, and the objective is to delete those paths before starting maintenance. > Thanks for your review! You're welcome, Brian
- [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