IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] Comment on draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 14 March 2017 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7D7129B24 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HDqfETRIsUkk for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6512B129568 for <grow@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: grow@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v2EBmcF1078659 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:48:39 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Message-ID: <58C7D895.4070002@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:48:37 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.11 (Macintosh/20170302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
References: <20170313121134.6676bd02@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <71D584DF-94F5-40B3-BCE0-4736354ECCCB@harg.net> <20170314072225.55fdd871@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <58C7BD67.6080308@foobar.org> <20170314111326.3714e0ed@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <58C7D033.8060203@foobar.org> <20170314123054.3b971d1d@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170314123054.3b971d1d@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/RYQCVGSHA6f_Ofsv14eVntmCf1k>
Cc: grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] Comment on draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:48:47 -0000

Tore Anderson wrote:
> In other words: in my opinion, BGP session culling should be considered
> a BCP even in situations where link state signaling and/or BFD is used.
> IP-transit providers should perform culling towards their customers
> ahead of maintenance works. Direct peers, likewise.

probably not much need if bfd is used because that would operate
route-to-router.  Link state signaling is problematic because it's not
necessarily transferred to all the devices that need to see the link
state changes.

> IXPs aren't at all special regarding the fundamental need for session
> culling, only in the method by which it is accomplished (i.e., using
> layer-2 ACLs).

Correct, but for direct peers over PNIs, etc, the operator will usually
have control over the bgp session.  What we're talking about here is a
situation where there is an intermediate operator which has no direct
admin control over bgp sessions.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email