Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 07 May 2008 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B9328C6D6; Wed, 7 May 2008 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A8E28C7DB for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2008 08:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qssWqmtf3x7a for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2008 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from manos.scc.mi.org (manos.scc.mi.org [204.11.140.250]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E5528C66C for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2008 08:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by manos.scc.mi.org (Postfix, from userid 1025) id A45694E4A2; Wed, 7 May 2008 11:27:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:27:11 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20080507152711.GA25053@scc.mi.org>
References: <20080506180029.GA26405@scc.mi.org> <9A3A6AC97A8CF44DACD99DC00BEC235A02F132D4@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> <20080506194653.GA8171@scc.mi.org> <42F67934-71FE-4D36-B793-91A9B7122096@juniper.net> <20080506212850.GA21845@scc.mi.org> <F5EFC2D4-6F27-4E32-A462-6706E23B59FC@juniper.net> <20080507141250.GA17332@scc.mi.org> <B1A246D0-56A0-481F-984E-353BB0975C18@juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B1A246D0-56A0-481F-984E-353BB0975C18@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Cc: idr@ietf.org, "RAMSAROOP, JEEWAN P, ATTLABS" <jramsaroop@att.com>, "NGUYEN, HAN Q, ATTLABS" <hnguyen@att.com>, "LONGHITANO, ANTHONY C, ATTLABS" <aclonghitano@att.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:38:42AM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote:
> Actually given the other rules we've discussed I don't see where  
> there's potential for loops even absent the ACCEPT_OWN community,  
> which is why I referred to it as "belt-and-suspenders".  If you can  
> think of a specific loop scenario, I'd be interested to hear it.

My concern has always been if this mechanism is inadvertantly applied to
a box that doesn't have "multiple contexts".  While I think we can both
agree that if people follow the spec (presuming a good spec) that this
shouldn't be an issue I think we've both seen poor implementations and
the hazards surrounding such.  This seems more likely in the case where
someone tries to apply this outside of a VPN context.

> Seems like an editorial rather than normative change -- essentially  
> emphasizing that the behavior is controlled by configuration and  
> defaults off.  As such, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

Then I suspect we've converged.  I'm looking forward to the next
revision.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr