Re: [Idr] Debugging accepted routes from BGP speakers

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0C3120255 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:41:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 wiGqQuFQdeVX for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (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 5D38E120013 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id z4so11555830pfn.12 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:41:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=GYDfdeb+tKJlZ2sBtvLZgLf706T/jsNXm9N3Y3S5cLw=; b=gFZPXNq0YSPBdrymWChQhbMSHfDSZtriOs6PgOvMD7Kna00XH6se5fTC3E2/2tKzvd k74ykwAMSAfYAfA6S7w+AyD8nbn579Wpcsie1gYJae1QaIXRH7NPydpBWVTCk9RDPAg+ VCCq4661JOve8fpJHDTid8MHybJ3flz4sriYxw4ShMLbr8zZAC6g/8wWeOlqYaTlf7+j pmYoVU7KH1htiq+RLHeUUtcS62E2uRhbVZ/UR+Ot4+xJ/Ur59z2DonvZS10190y1+bfE FvA831Q03jPxZ48xD34WPZ6kewX7KgFeibkid0kIFCgRkB42bDXwyLw4W3GuEWa4D7Vj zkug==
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:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=GYDfdeb+tKJlZ2sBtvLZgLf706T/jsNXm9N3Y3S5cLw=; b=l6uxibn558D6+gE3PznR1bpxOKe44K6jvRKuaLpQ7V7dvH24vDch6pepwitczrV1K1 6E/RxgstxuE8VORdcagyu60PjhqziCVl8Ft0Ap1Qwi0jJ1RFzB4BRJwNR0hFQj1DNBaR v2uNCQmU5RJiinfe+s+77LSHDIeVHO6q9tR4RwKLZupy2Yfkl/juoo0j6xoPIEUpwvl3 QHZ0vrxkTfcaszvCmtLO4Nd19VFryAvaqndvn2Gc+e2e7mpzcVEJSQiVI2Wb5fm4p8I/ vRPilEs32IefdWkx8dAKcl0B/itwGhVY9qNtRPKjqSAlXSmUzZSW3HAlFnq42HWYr41B XhrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV920k8704O50rOMYUMhxF5lAWXX5pihrw3CdhAwoIechJAqNzN ME9NImJVNSqvWkp3emu2NVk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhLrvIV4urN28OE7OL8TmQlsQwDMDN4iZR7UWhODAsGBUyrCcicmcLaGOuD3QhYCtihiCS7Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5848:: with SMTP id i8mr3483553pgm.217.1574142089940; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.151.247] (dhcp-97f7.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.151.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a13sm1409226pjq.13.2019.11.18.21.41.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:41:18 +0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: IDR <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <4cdc7f02-f4bf-411c-bd45-2d6b70c25d5d@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR11MB18075F3AD772326EE90E39A0C04C0@MWHPR11MB1807.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <157406668522.14183.13795160095173591028.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EC0AF47A-D6F3-4903-A597-C0F18520A8B0@puck.nether.net> <CAOj+MMGOT4jyAaaiQ6PngdNFSGx3BrmS6wU+-Pg1Oow16wRYZA@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC8yD+fWaSeTkHd+UubzfnxgBbbFXCeuRuzVcmK6VQqKew@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMETtqBw5cRLna=eSVa5ezXeR=NjeT_q5JQVhAyVruziTw@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC-8yPsr8qXMD2cUTjkKEc1cnTG+6vA1tfQtQ6n248rrJA@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR11MB18075F3AD772326EE90E39A0C04C0@MWHPR11MB1807.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 4cdc7f02-f4bf-411c-bd45-2d6b70c25d5d@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5dd38086_8138641_eea9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1E1H295mpDMfSh92jSMwhXFteuE>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Debugging accepted routes from BGP speakers
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 05:41:35 -0000

+1 Jakob

Sometime ago, validating exactly that (across 4 vendors/6 OS's), I observed  difference in behaviors across vendors and in 1 instance between different OS’s of the same vendor

Cheers,
Jeff
On Nov 19, 2019, 1:19 PM +0800, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>om>, wrote:
> In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271#section-9.1.2
> the AS loop is broken at the receiver.
> Nowhere does it say that the sender must break the AS loop.
> Split horizon filtering is a common practice, but nowhere
> is it mandated. At least I could not find it.
>
> If the receiver of your route were to send you back its
> best path, even if it's your route, then you have your
> information.
>
> We could invent an address-family specific capability
> to indicate that you wish your route to be echoed back.
>
> Regards,
> Jakob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Job Snijders
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 3:00 AM
> To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> Cc: IDR <idr@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Debugging accepted routes from BGP speakers
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:50 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> > > The latter one is oftentimes easily validated by Internet-wide looking glasses
> >
> > Hmmmm I must say that IMHO both latter and former could be addressed by looking-glass. In fact when I read this draft that was my first question - why not to just look at peer's looking glass ?
>
> Many networks unfortunately do not make BGP Looking Glasses available,
> nor is there any standardized interface/method/design/approach for BGP
> Looking Glasses. So solely relying on Looking Glasses for this
> functionality has proven to be insufficient.
>
> > So perhaps we should simply issue a BCP to say that each AS should run a looking glass server holding all paths and declare victory ? And that could be all GROW WG thing too :)
>
> That is an interesting idea, but in my mind not the exclusive viable solution.
>
> > I already see a bunch of new things we could accomplish in the Internet if we would have those in place consistently everywhere - at least for each transit AS.
>
> Agreed - it would be a nicer world. Through the MANRS initiative I've
> pitched the idea to provide more encouragement for networks to provide
> looking glasses to the public, but arguably their availability is not
> ubiquitous.
>
> Another observation is that in the "IP Transit Carrier" segment of the
> market we see BGP Looking Glasses from time to time, but we rarely see
> similar functionality offered by Cloud/CDN providers. Perhaps the
> latter category is not interested in running & maintaining looking
> glasses, or perhaps there are other constraints that prevent them from
> exposing this information via suchs tools. My hope is that by creating
> a feedback mechanism in BGP we create more opportunity to share
> debugging information specific to EBGP sessions between different
> orgs.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr