IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-grow-no-export-via-rs-00.txt

Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel@de-cix.net> Wed, 11 October 2017 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <wolfgang.tremmel@de-cix.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 CAC0913304D for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 88j4HJZKVfHC for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de-cix.net (relay4.de-cix.net [46.31.123.2]) (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 4BC39132D89 for <grow@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,361,1503352800"; d="scan'208";a="394455"
Received: from smtp.de-cix.net ([192.168.65.10]) by mailgw014.de-cix.net with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2017 13:41:13 +0200
Received: from MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net (MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net [192.168.49.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.de-cix.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8A9DB00B9 for <grow@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net (192.168.49.2) by MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net (192.168.49.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:41:12 +0200
Received: from MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net ([fe80::9449:4d85:69bf:3d4c]) by MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net ([fe80::9449:4d85:69bf:3d4c%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:41:12 +0200
From: Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel@de-cix.net>
To: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [GROW] New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-grow-no-export-via-rs-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTQQc63vk3yf7Wz0uLWhGtbNIXQaLcUTiAgAIW3oA=
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:41:11 +0000
Message-ID: <BD1F8460-B3F9-4929-BB48-90426C4B098C@de-cix.net>
References: <150755724571.18417.9649319989788465072.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <59DB815C.4040607@foobar.org> <CACWOCC-NKuPdKGdK+9wLaV+Fx5UBXN-KSx25VrHQpeEUbj7Vpg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACWOCC-NKuPdKGdK+9wLaV+Fx5UBXN-KSx25VrHQpeEUbj7Vpg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.168.140.92]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4D994E3514E3FB40AB589421EA53C888@for-the-inter.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/tvPogXJc_0ezuStJWpkX4o0JbYc>
Subject: Re: [GROW] New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-grow-no-export-via-rs-00.txt
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, 11 Oct 2017 11:41:17 -0000

Hello,

> On 10. Oct 2017, at 05:46, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
> 
> Have you considered just updating RFC 7947 to resolve the described ambiguity by stating that a route server SHOULD pass the NO_EXPORT community unaltered, rather than interpret it or block it?

From my reading of RFC1997 and RFC7947 the ambiguity is not really one:

RFC1997 states that any community-aware BGP speaker MUT NOT advertise prefixes received with NO_EXPORT
--> a route server is a BGP speaker
--> it is community aware

RFC7947 uses wording SHOULD NOT and MAY which IMHO are weaker. 

> 
> 
> Why is there no consensus amongst route server operators on what the correct behavior is? Can you provide a citation?
> 

all that aside, DE-CIX already has all that functionality using our own communities (we actually have two, one for adding NO_EXPORT and one for adding NO_ADVERTISE, and also allow selective adding using Large Communities):
https://www.de-cix.net/en/locations/united-states/dallas/routeserver-guide

best regards
Wolfgang

-- 
Wolfgang Tremmel                     

Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816 | wolfgang.tremmel@de-cix.net
Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135
DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email