Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 20 June 2016 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 B7C6812DA8F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.198, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 1Uthr9Il4G3i for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (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 D4AF212DA8E for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id f6so48506150lfg.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=tMOGAKgIdkf4xX4NY3iApvrwp3NusKtAITVK4W+Gm5c=; b=QfpgygeFxwjjHmnfe6HKnL8AK3JC1zOlYPNFMSJ7ImBZTrVyBcVJCd3F22ZBd4Id5p 3mYvAXYBt+iFiQJiC/PLXx2ZLgIZRdXxhlfZ07f6l654FoNyM1p1vcF5DjPFJwCeL3BA q3/y3T4Yg/hc/9sxbk+VmuycliPeOHq1CG0z2kBBJQ1vqk7Q7KWi0MLiaeulrlt86QPW gA6y1vwILJMJrDwKuvEuKBrQzXmwWGGTHDUsIV/Adjy8Cc8W3sWGtBTb8/OXAKLBhQ7Z Uf2DLcqswRjUjRIVQQypqGS4TmQ/vb6quAiydgCuPxGD9pEsJUWBQ7a9WhXUvj7dlUOR CYbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tMOGAKgIdkf4xX4NY3iApvrwp3NusKtAITVK4W+Gm5c=; b=GQBKS0cWrTRD8DkuEZ/HzqzwR3hye1qCmMB7PcUWDIZbWyKaleRFB4cc8vkYc5Ty+Z +94EPzgzqfFYahMoTjZZqZwKtQVcyYrqD/b4prAa8b5IpzFJgNKAf46wf8hoQJvBlZlz BV5zvodZFm7ErhB3tnAxUOxXaR6jipVhWBOQUncOrVaAXJdyBcv6JIsv5WpyF9/ieVd1 GqcrBB2YdbbORAflVSjwZoXSrqQ8lBQp7vmoLQ1+W+DP4eWMalsaYmmTN0hCENZX70ZK shuNDnPx1zuBJc7dzMK37Ww21UQPNLRL09mHfN8yXyJz2a+SY0Z00mC2UOWT3qrsC93G HgjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK6uD9tI4DETRb3iiflGQnqKjh785jXrG8R6hpGHcJ5ma6HfgWNWX9zf/rgEAcBz8xnwICzFynRQDRmCQ==
X-Received: by 10.25.33.133 with SMTP id h127mr3921351lfh.82.1466459806931; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.25.21.30 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <acaf236969bfea098089dbfcc397b9fc@lamehost.it>
References: <0DE7AB8E-4CFD-44C5-898F-47F48B542599@kuehlewind.net> <575F2704.3050509@foobar.org> <m237ogo5w1.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaaCa9aUOw0HUfyrt05GTYL+yGZum1M=3_4r_E0nx4PqJg@mail.gmail.com> <A65A6088-433D-4200-B098-B2FFEB0A45CD@psg.com> <CAL9jLabgF=h9wSg4GoDoJiT76HcKK2DhpJv=ZxLws7LSs8RN3g@mail.gmail.com> <575FD94E.8030606@foobar.org> <m2inxckqr8.wl%randy@psg.com> <575FF3B9.3080501@foobar.org> <m2ziqnk8b1.wl%randy@psg.com> <20160620131112.GE2950@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ER=yEDkOeYch+6=Zah+N-Hmp8qwfCyw4ZyZZ6VVZ1XNAyA@mail.gmail.com> <acaf236969bfea098089dbfcc397b9fc@lamehost.it>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:56:46 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: -LRhmaON45E1taJ0swEK7DcdY3I
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnTKCAu59xyEGPD=EvD0YhNRt8V3vdqaE9UfM33B1E+DA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f1888dea0e00535bcc7bf
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/25clNGtexpVS7nFR4sfXrrtHXC8>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ie?= =?utf-8?q?tf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:56:52 -0000

Hi Marco,

Altering AS_PATH indeed does not happen that often. Let's put that one
aside keeping in mind that practical use cases exists where adding an AS is
needed which to me precludes "MUST".

But I can't agree with statement that IXP RS "should be as transparent as
possible to route propagation" as every IX which assists in routes handling
offers extensive RS to client (and to some level even client to RS)
filtering policies.

Ref:
https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/ams-ix-route-servers

That proves black on white that "transparency" is gone. Now the question is
if we should RFC something which would be completely unpractical or
unusable ?

Many thx,
R.


On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>; wrote:

> On 2016-06-20 20:24, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> I am somewhat late in chiming in on this thread, but I'm also
>>> supportive of
>>> making this a MUST.
>>>
>>
>> ​As discussed before I disagree. Injecting AS(es) is a simplest form
>> of making some paths less preferable then others. ​And per peer
>> policy asking RS send my paths to peers X,Y, Z with + 4 ASes, but to
>> peer A, B, C do not prepend as Niels points out maybe there already
>> today.
>>
>> If you're intending to inject your AS number into the path, then
>>> you're
>>> acting as a standard BGP speaker, not a Route Server.
>>>
>>
>> ​To me the Route Server is a Route Reflector for EBGP sessions. It
>> really does not matter if you are messing with AS_PATH there or not.
>> What actually matters ​is that you do not set next hop to yourself
>> there.
>>
>
> I would like to underline that this draft depicts the behavior of a route
> server in an IXP environment.
> And, for many reasons, an IXP should be as transparent as possible when it
> comes to route propagation.
>
> --
> Marco
>