Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Wed, 20 May 2015 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0671A88EB; Wed, 20 May 2015 09:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mDjYQzxw46j8; Wed, 20 May 2015 09:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 905E01A890B; Wed, 20 May 2015 09:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3476; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1432138914; x=1433348514; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=03QR/8BM2DuyQJLUSw0FLdGOs4LYH5yV+yxHifljBMo=; b=gFDBQNNSy+NOnujOqAGa+d+yG1f0JscHNAKCDReRF17A3B6fFirOkd4f imKrxtENJ7a1WIST9qi1BVJ3tRUEQuN3k58+c4EMhtFSozTuzrOQcI8cY 51M4nPZg8zMcCnqEy1ndAeL/RMqDICvzl+wApoBwwcQQ/DeFuMKrC5UMN Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,465,1427760000"; d="scan'208,217";a="151864517"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 May 2015 16:21:53 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4KGLpDL001947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 May 2015 16:21:51 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 20 May 2015 11:21:51 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: Rob Shakir <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution
Thread-Index: AQHQkn7LtaP9hO+pSU+lgHeULAqMVJ2FVdsAgAALIIA=
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:21:50 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <etPan.555cab4a.3e5241e6.b56b@corretto.local>
In-Reply-To: <etPan.555cab4a.3e5241e6.b56b@corretto.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_10947B7C16954F4E81F3407551DB2C2Bciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:23:12 -0000

Sent from my iPad

On May 20, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Rob Shakir <<>> wrote:

Sorry — I completely disagree here. If we consider that this information might be sharing a BGP session with another AFI,SAFI that is significantly more critical to network operation, this kind of meta data SHOULD NOT impact that other AFI,SAFI’s routing.

Based on this, session reset as a default behaviour is really not acceptable to me from an operational perspective.

For the record, I agree with the other comments about scaling/isolation - and argued these to start with the authors. Ultimately, if we are going to have the ability for BGP-LS to share sessions with other routing information, then robustness is something that has to be a critical concern.

Yes, disjoint thoughts from my part in listing as separate items.  If we have isolation, then we can make both applications better.