Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 24 June 2016 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 A459712D0FD for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 1Gu6dM7JDvAN for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8639B12D0F9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u5OGsPYR040525 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:54:26 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <576D65C0.8080108@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:54:24 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael H Lambert <lambert@psc.edu>
References: <0F2F74E2-B3CB-4447-9C7C-028F47E6490F@psc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <0F2F74E2-B3CB-4447-9C7C-028F47E6490F@psc.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6P0kH1wNR2bHoj_JczvNeMIQAmY>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11
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: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:54:30 -0000

Michael H Lambert wrote:
> This may have been discussed before and I just couldn't find it in
> the archives, and it may be too late in the process to ask the
> question, but should RFC 7606 (Revised Error Handling for BGP) apply
> to peering sessions with route server clients?  It does run counter
> to attribute transparency, but it can help insure that the "right"
> session is reset and that known (or knowable) bad announcements are
> properly propagated.

My reading is that the draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server is ok on this.
 The relevant sections in RFC7606 are 7.2 to 7.4, inclusive.  7.3 and
7.4 only make line-protocol statements on what should be considered
malformed.

Section 7.2 states:

>    [RFC4271] also says that an implementation optionally "MAY check
>    whether the leftmost ... AS in the AS_PATH attribute is equal to the
>    autonomous system number of the peer that sent the message". 

I.e. it makes no statement one way or another on what should be done
where the leftmost as != peeras.  draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server
doesn't contradict this.

Nick