Re: [Idr] Vendor Defaults (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 07 November 2016 21:17 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 414A612956F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:17:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, 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 tXfMKJ7dmO5j for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (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 C8EFD129715 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t79so202535569wmt.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 13:17:44 -0800 (PST)
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=/BwTLWsrvvaueV3lDXBIs1horRb5bdM/Je4ny16pGbQ=; b=VFZTj4NgQMobk3jPVTVB7nn1/Kc7gZGdYIntny8+4D6INw+VbsujlGTnMUrErUOLwk naY2vNVV1mteh+x9A1hyOJX7+NGmK01UkvM1ZOI6r0Nyf4mTb+qTxpv9yQcA11Zgs/Hx Kq/hlJ+OTSJzwUIplWQlBid6DjcS103QbURDXcEylVGjKXByKRvHjhFJnXsrh+Nbkrxi JNAFWgMon4FdxJd1i8S2b03LtfPankucevx5YIA7k03b92zlb/kCTL2LNsFqKPJq8AB5 eY7Za3k76A0aJ1jz57zvi0Lmrp9V3+Bz86B+oeFUCWS9MhO2Gi1vG2IrnNF2NHGL+y6F P4vg==
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=/BwTLWsrvvaueV3lDXBIs1horRb5bdM/Je4ny16pGbQ=; b=QRpxNDcFYwz/Ma6en0K2+GKxl2ephMTKZMIZF5AWEJxYSHbII2B7eTnAn5aafs++mm mO7DMumlVoZEgPeZBWRA02mpJV466G597QSJVqKybb8LiGSU6YbQFgAx1h6M79AjEcna moup/M6QlrSF7BmnkdKawmPb80FAopydaFBRf6EBI4MtkSk5o189F90zeE+ltl7X2XRZ rsEXaG/wdEaJLvFydg/hsEdIr2aqYTpP6Bl4HFNL7kgn9jn1qbHDGrOIfSfgBX9BlIko DFG+K9GlwyxB8947ZlC9nkW2OZNw+UY4Vnwl6tJs9aWShQRsC6yCCZIdN3qJJ3TSrchw uNsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvepTZ4+RDC/sIo7D45km9ZjyiS8BPbZt5Z00FcbAW4F8P7694cDtP2o2r22od3QbeQ8NWU5x0TTMaslMw==
X-Received: by 10.28.17.213 with SMTP id 204mr2046970wmr.17.1478553463075; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 13:17:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.80.137.69 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:17:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCio69PytDGJ5JAc3L077Rvue9Mss92cKD+FH9rFLeULfuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH1iCiq6jNtnkta0Bt952EQ9zOKSGt=_cCySsT5XuOKuHYO2nQ@mail.gmail.com> <86860386-9C2B-4BD5-B457-2A6DA5446CF3@cisco.com> <20161106040849.GB18931@shrubbery.net> <5BD3C90E-CC0E-42D2-9ACD-5787FC75BF0A@cisco.com> <20161106194258.GB5113@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERnEDrPi4SAR9_R1zmwbYCE9aQEQjZN8tK09Y8csMDchVw@mail.gmail.com> <20161107102306.GV24817@gir.theapt.org> <022901d2391f$928dc660$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAH1iCip6ut+C2Hv2FZZ5Bycth+_=smJ_o=_C2LMvBh-fmFgVtg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERkSJ57rvndCOaA+i8RWm_oFVyR6vO7eupY6JHVh9_68Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCio69PytDGJ5JAc3L077Rvue9Mss92cKD+FH9rFLeULfuw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:17:41 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _5yKWqbVAhOnJjicidmeH-4K2j0
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERkkjbGTA19CxkfU6NGFSr3ni=4NPOy+uAu+_9YNfnM1Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145aa78f2c4070540bc8d78
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BgtLy7UrPvPAf3XAAPzDNC1x8qU>
Cc: IETF IDR <idr@ietf.org>, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Vendor Defaults (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt)
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, 07 Nov 2016 21:17:47 -0000

Hi Brian,

> Also, I am not aware of whether attribute-sending is flagged in the
capabilities
> negotiation of an OPEN. That would, IMHO, be a better place to signal
> attribute passing vs dropping, rather than on each UPDATE. What do
> vendors think of that (or is it already done?)?

Large Community does not require capability negotiation hence its support
or not
will not be signaled in OPEN msg.

Assuming that you are proposing a new capability which would indicate if a
given
transitive attribute it to be propagated or not based on local
configuration that
while may be nice idea requires dynamic capabilities which as you very well
know is for number of years and after number of attempts to support it
nowhere.

Rgs,
R.

PS. Perhaps the right place for this would be Operational Message which
Rob, Dave
and myself proposed few years back but due to lack of support the idea died
in spite
of already being a WG supported draft ...

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00





On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Brian Dickson <
brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> > Maybe folks from various vendors (including open source
>> implementations)
>> > could chime in on the availability of knobs for changing global
>> (default)
>>
>> Maybe we should move this thread to GROW maybe not, but since you started
>> the pool here I would add a question to indicate by any implementation that
>> if it drops an attribute (as it is not enabled to be sent over a session)
>> would it log it in syslog and if so with what error level. The worse
>> operationally are silent drops in any control plane.
>>
>>
>>
> I would definitely be in favor of including that detail.
>
> Also, I am not aware of whether attribute-sending is flagged in the
> capabilities negotiation of an OPEN. That would, IMHO, be a better place to
> signal attribute passing vs dropping, rather than on each UPDATE. What do
> vendors think of that (or is it already done?)?
>
> Brian
>