IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Wed, 12 December 2012 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 E500C21E8034 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:04:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 inwKLytgflRy for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:04:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675C421F8878 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:04:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.137] (173-167-0-106-michigan.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.167.0.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by puck.nether.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBCL3lPm019262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:03:48 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaYg+3vnOzwGLdpJCvB1obkUv_ZVa-p92z1FFg_T=8yNTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:03:47 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FB0C298A-D18A-454C-B910-141B9ED853A2@puck.nether.net>
References: <CA+b+ERnuWZ+r2O-eFhe3hU00uoU4UKnRcbhLNVXU7p5+DjoWbQ@mail.gmail.com> <C6C16AE3B7961044B04A1BCEC6E2F93603D12A0C@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <20121210225858.GC24937@puck.nether.net> <m2d2yh32cw.wl%randy@psg.com> <CA+b+ERnSVvewSpftXs3FhW12-S+sgnB1SwD4L+xqFW+hhbQayw@mail.gmail.com> <7120600D-71BD-4E61-8F06-25B7C2BAE6A8@riw.us> <20121211185917.GA21813@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERnzo2BLWjE1J_dMfYuExbG9WYJroPE4ZAWg++KK2_jy1g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERm=Agr7b6JXcXOwiP4wBjnEFmnVNt5fAJrn18R0hGtSzg@mail.gmail.com> <50C78C29.3070406@foobar.org> <50C8B8D9.4090903@umn.edu> <50C8C491.4040705@foobar.org> <CAH1iCiqfZRLv2pBEg3gKxT=ZXf7AXCPJ_+QibOpgeFfOuqFK7g@mail.gmail.com> <50C8CE86.10103@umn.edu> <50C8CF69.4070202@foobar.org> <CA+b+ER=tp+tdmNomjAXpaRBG8cYNo1SybAr1WoJ9frBUSGoOrg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaaenLrpG7Rw2N2+CpBXmazS+tufa_2UZAHJT-GOn580Fw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERn4OM3BLbn90w74mrP_DsUb3-dUJc87LqtpJWhuFOLivg@mail.gmail.com> <FA7751F7-820B-41E4-AB56-BAB9D44BB353@kumari.net> <CA+b+ERn-! 20o7nqHgT-FBSM7ZrvrwxWjcvQO7Mz9mO=TH94z5HQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA1705A3-1F62-46E4-999F-2F9DBE2E7378@puck.nether.net> <CAL9jLaYg+3vnOzwGLdpJCvB1obkUv_ZVa-p92z1FFg_T=8yNTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:03:49 -0500 (EST)
Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:04:06 -0000

On Dec 12, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>> Ideally the vendors along the path would not default advert their full table to someone without an explicit policy configured.  They would also make some of these settings more default.. remove-private should be the default behavior for this new space.
> 
> is default-remove-private really the right thing to do? for some
> 'internet connected' routers probably, for everyone? not likely.

They can configure their policy to override the default behavior.

The problem I see is implementations that

a) default sending all best-path routes to peers.  (at least one vendor has this as a major problem).
b) leak "private" space without explicit configurations to enable said action.

- Jared

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status