IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] comments on draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 01 August 2017 14:50 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 0DA7C13218F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 07:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
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 eKD_NJqWcGcI for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 07:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (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 76C8613218B for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 07:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 77so9070013itj.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=853J++gVWjcYt8qV78oIUq4ZUsW5ypK8vt6rM8uOiyY=; b=DUc5vPrsd5IbaK/d87MUAxSZWFBdpT+/f9UbRh9Lo7MeLznw5WoGQYxAYhC2yIt4VV QRE56lXaLdS38CK4Au7mi0ehhnfc2dWDKcO/vieY2e/iqgu+zjyPZKhOK4AeWhZd5Wzc qpAd1hRrn9gitko9p+qNNSZ1ayyGrvhxEn3lOplcQLibKJCduApcZDT0MlZ19ZCYhfEe B7HsF8+Nrx99f6dwndE7mdDqZvq96akRXs2JD/3hquZ5iSZKfjiflRC93Maj+cvi3VZY ScVd8KOOg7r72RtiWXrSdP8y+7ka/UaOzC00imxH/OoHXmZtzQW6SecKtxhAOtFWD9Iq nqNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=853J++gVWjcYt8qV78oIUq4ZUsW5ypK8vt6rM8uOiyY=; b=dnIcAjV5kOWwposKNuh+2fGwrDmaHnYcSkmFO2TkWjBMMo1AM5uGaG+sBfVdDhuxBV OZcI4R+lziYiASjOHUWAlE9FcT6Ba42sd7phBd2BRh0V6eOIhw/RPQsQuAT8qeBMa2GO rb3tCZqXGeocyJQFCtDiPL4XvQ1Qc/aehyU/wn0eSMPiw6dR3egMkLJ+dZn98s+Irs83 wQum/JNrw03dJNoeigXjOL2HjpoU9kNvO+dp5yUgU77RpfCgIVUO9IlukJ1QWDeQe/sg o9uMeBcX9biUJgB0Afptzf52SGDpxXDOPmQpOsvTgXgdnO9AIfhzl2yc+lq8GLHNGK1c 1FTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111bZoCUsKKbT3TKdeOcqERfd5IiBhzlTUkpxfFrVqbLfWwh7Uxr FTz6Q487z+KX1JNkxlVvUP6+sFCgkA==
X-Received: by 10.36.173.2 with SMTP id c2mr1996082itf.16.1501599028563; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.153.21 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 07:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170801133109.fdupuhfooudham5d@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <59807D1E.4050807@foobar.org> <20170801133109.fdupuhfooudham5d@hanna.meerval.net>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 16:50:27 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: OXFbFf_8BOczs-e0ijBtPS2PkBU
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmoKAoLr_6yAHSyqJKBGANHxVJMF8am0UQqoDhid_+ziw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1fd1e8b17e5a0555b244b4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CGwscANjk9UziWs6ugojUf9NKTw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] comments on draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 14:50:31 -0000

Hi Job,

Not quite ... Nick is correct - next hop reachability are global in RS.
Sure each client may have his path in his view but this is not what will
limit the next hop liveness decision.

See messages and suggestions from John on how to treat failures reported by
N clients as something more important then failures of NH reachability
reported by one or two clients. In both cases they would affect entire RS
not only those clients views.

Cheers,
R.


On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> I'll cherry pick a bit in responding.
>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:07:42PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > -  the proposal allows rsclient A to influence reachability for their
> > competitor, rsclient B.  This is a show-stopper in my books but other
> > people may have different opinions.
>
> I am under the impression that the NHIB (Next Hop Information Base) is
> per-client, like the Loc-RIB and Adj-RIB-Out are, so what you describe
> shouldn't be an issue. See section 4.4 "The route server maintains a
> per-client Next Hop Information Base".
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email