IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Tue, 14 March 2017 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.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 3D99D131E20 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 EdePH5vNGb0a for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [195.30.115.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DB9A132925 for <grow@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: grow@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55708615CC for <grow@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:55:26 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17571602B6; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:55:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 08F4D71B6A; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:55:26 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:55:25 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, bruno.decraene@orange.com, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170314155525.GP2367@Space.Net>
References: <20170312221655.pl47y6qjcqm2wiei@Vurt.local> <0c71f1c9-a1dd-22bf-ec93-444b023efcf1@gmail.com> <20170313161910.GA27138@shrubbery.net> <26854_1489501737_58C7FE29_26854_1752_55_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31C69189@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20170314145905.aq3yfynuewankiji@Vurt.local> <10435_1489504054_58C80736_10435_2328_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31C6A455@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20170314154106.GO2367@Space.Net> <20170314154910.6aprmeelk3essdi3@Vurt.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IsqurkL11fjX1jmx"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170314154910.6aprmeelk3essdi3@Vurt.local>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/il0qR7q2L031cb5DCYhHe5RURfI>
Subject: Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
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 15:55:30 -0000

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:49:10PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:41:06PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:07:32PM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> > > On a side note, I'd be interesting to know why reducing the impact
> > > of the maintenance using gshut is not considered as worth it, while
> > > it is for culling. Especially since the benefit of the latter is
> > > 90 second (and configurable)  while the former is minutes (and not
> > > configurable).
> > 
> > How's the IXP operator going to introduce a gshut message into a BGP
> > session between IXP customer A and IXP customer B?
> 
> an IXP can't, and I am not under the impression that Bruno was
> suggestion to do so. I took his comments as applicable to section 2.1
> 
> this is why the proposed draft contains two angles: one for IXPs and one
> for ISPs, each with their different nuances.

Indeed, for a direct ISP-ISP link, and the maintenance being controlled
by one of the peering parties, gshut would be a useful approach (if
it's known that the other party has deployed it).

Since the title of the draft is "session-culling" it feels somewhat
out of scope to go more into detail on gshut, but a reference might
be useful.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email