Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status?
Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Wed, 15 March 2017 14:54 UTC
Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
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 639E51315AE for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 vMmZTgBmUliJ for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-f54.google.com (mail-pg0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54]) (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 983921315C2 for <grow@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 141so10267857pgd.1 for <grow@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
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:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dTyPFkGIR+roYPZUpaiwPSSW4aUiv3KSL5Xtr3zy/rM=; b=Zj6IYda0Kq/C7ckjfE0XtN1p80OpWfVq0pwCFeS0LFRaCFHL/fqMQmW8CoTaSx0/uA 6wJ0Q/Q/y42AicTJ3ntllnpMQUP6lTt4z30I0xCGi6/wrl/TTLbbY7crPP/2g8pGXjvI esx+stESKt0QGbj3scDYZ/1JraNADLTnScmgqMBkLeBoiDP4S3Rcb5GzMoITQS3BxlRd WxX+wDhHEcYkshd7PQztbn7fWbPMwHvX14RJkeZdJk7RUVkTYViBbHsm2lM+5sMBb+1X NJjOKM36A1C/IPpO2AwciKkYntAOV0d79TyUxScF9G5kaj9mAdLiUiiCiWDwlGaYhD0d RMNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H24Rbwrs72jFRtpQmscFFglLzvRxzT+isjKEEz/1kxgqBDgG5XYLTpU/CeiRVu9aQ==
X-Received: by 10.99.119.196 with SMTP id s187mr4061767pgc.225.1489589660909; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([192.147.168.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n189sm4950077pfn.108.2017.03.15.07.54.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:54:16 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Cc: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170315145416.iiox6dz4u53dkfn4@Vurt.local>
References: <20170315131039.gxle23rupztnexqm@Vurt.local> <1294_1489586438_58C94906_1294_16108_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31C6FFA0@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1294_1489586438_58C94906_1294_16108_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31C6FFA0@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/X9szlXWg8Y0iUzQQAPD-aRywXnA>
Subject: Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status?
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:54:25 -0000
Hi Bruno, On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:00:37PM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote: > > From: GROW [mailto:grow-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 2:11 PM > > > > I noticed that https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-06 > > expired two years ago. Can anyone offer some insight why it lapsed? > > In order to signal the graceful shutdown over the EBGP session, gshut > uses a "well-know" BGP community. Compared to using a protocol > extension, this allows a vanillia sender/receiver to handle the > information using a regular BGP policy. > So far so good. This is specified, implemented both with BGP policy > and automated by some routers, tested (both options). > > Now, for some deployments, the use of a non-transitive community offer > a better assurance that the community has indeed be originated by the > connected eBGP peer. The issue is that currently there is no > implementation of non-transitive well-known communities. > draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities is a short draft to > define non-transitive well-known communities. It proposed to re-use an > "existing" non-transitive extended community, defined for four-octets > AS: draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype. But it turns out > that this latter draft did not progress and has recently been replaced > by BGP large community. The later do no support non-transitive > community. > > So after waiting for some years for > draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype, this path has just > been closed. As of today, the possible options seems: > > - forget about non-transitive community. In particular as during the > BGP large community discussions, the requirement for non-transitive > community has been discussed and explicitly called as not needed. So > let's listen to this and do the same. I'd like to add a small nuance: For the use case of large communities, non-transitivity was considered an undesirable property. To be honest, if the 'gshut' community 'escapes' the adjacent ASN for which it was intended, what is the worst that can happen? That BGP speakers somewhere in the DFZ consider the path less desirable? This aligns with what is expected to happen in the near future anyway: the bgp session will be torn down and the path will cease to exist. In the case where no shutdown event follows (the gshut community is used as a traffic engineering trick), it kind of goes in the same category as intermediat networks prepending ASNs to the AS_PATH to make it less desirable, or fiddling with origin. If I were to consider "permanent use" of the gshut community a violation of my agreement with the adjacent network, this would be easy enough to monitor for and subsequently resolve at layer-8. > - have draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities use a different > extended community type. This is easy to write, but if this does not > get implemented, the value is limited/null. I concur. A similar consideration could be made whether gshut deserves its own path attribute or not. Usually the nice thing about well known rfc 1997 communities is their rapid implementation and deployability. > > What implementatations exist? A fellow operator told me that IOS, > > IOS XE has support for graceful shutdown, are there others? > > Same information on my side. With the restriction that those > implementations only implement the transitive community. ack. I'm somewhat inclined to proceed with the gshut concept as a well-known transitive rfc 1997 community. What do others think? Kind regards, Job
- [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Job Snijders
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Job Snijders
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Ben Maddison
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Robert Raszuk
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Robert Raszuk
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Ben Maddison
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Robert Raszuk
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Ben Maddison
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Robert Raszuk
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Gert Doering
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Robert Raszuk
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Ben Maddison
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Gert Doering
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Robert Raszuk
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Job Snijders
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Randy Bush
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? Job Snijders
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut status? bruno.decraene