IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] Call for GROW WG adoption of grow-overlapping-routes

Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> Mon, 27 August 2012 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@inex.ie>
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 3CA4921F86B8 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.411
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yxTzF6Ujmcsj for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acquirer.com (mail.acquirer.com [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B56421F8665 for <grow@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: <grow@ietf.org>
Received: from crumpet.internal.acquirer.com ([IPv6:2001:1bb8:2004:100:4d7c:d1ec:9a32:d6b4]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.acquirer.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7REAXHj079011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <grow@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:10:34 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@inex.ie)
Message-ID: <503B8037.9010505@inex.ie>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:12:07 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: grow@ietf.org
References: <CC5BE44F.2A792%pds@lugs.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC5BE44F.2A792%pds@lugs.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4
X-Company-Info-1: Internet Neutral Exchange Association Limited. Registered in Ireland No. 253804
X-Company-Info-2: Registered Offices: 1-2, Marino Mart, Fairview, Dublin 3
X-Company-Info-3: Internet Neutral Exchange Association Limited is limited by guarantee
X-Company-Info-4: Offices: 4027 Kingswood Road, Citywest, Dublin 24.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [GROW] Call for GROW WG adoption of grow-overlapping-routes
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:12:18 -0000

On 23/08/2012 06:44, Peter Schoenmaker wrote:
> At IETF in vancouver we had a presentation from Russ White for a new
> working group item draft-white-grow-overlapping-routes-00.  I would like to
> gauge the working group interest in adopting this draft as a working group
> item.  Can people please voice their approval or disapproval.

I'm concerned by a lot of statements in this draft, particularly:
	
> Overall, then, it is desirable to remove overlapping routes from the
> global routing table where possible.

People inject prefixes into the DFZ for specific reasons.  If they are
pruned by some upstream providers but not others, then the traffic
engineering model is broken because you can no longer depend on
more-specifics having visibility around the dfz.  Or am I reading this
incorrectly?

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email