IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 06 July 2017 20:50 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 931C4131963 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:50:45 -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 jZD_45AeIqEs for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (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 7764A129A96 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id v202so14210979itb.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 13:50:43 -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=BO6JoThgLrjWv9mZwMZZ4LztSuUOgOoqtqtJTS6uM5E=; b=TUuzry/V4iniC0fjJNOa+lGG32F7QJjwxzVtQxJwNuCeX87nI74eisvDK+aI67LnYF YPBGjM8+8Jtihopj6qnZboo6sg89UrGt+VSmw+9EGGlltsSbfO75bPsLzXpYzK2dq0nj oPYQxnjP4VHn/vFsc32rUPrIPqwBnDCmoh7LYfr9DaYTtlsoz19hpbafySRzQpcNydqr tYl7SJgvhIRfCNkhU6/At8AmKJGFEaUfjtmJUA1ldjSNcZKSKVe0NVSKhkyZKvP4em2l R1AZicqqvmM7dug05LNYoc0wXkUcLf2cCPK0NPJmeM/eDTG55/M0+9t6EFstTMqtSGgO Cutw==
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=BO6JoThgLrjWv9mZwMZZ4LztSuUOgOoqtqtJTS6uM5E=; b=Zp897Meq9pjt5pgLeaUisj1aXASzVsRmA0P3NOtMCJOJkVitcHo2O7c7FIMB35lEj6 0DXQkbcjAVQ0wKfrDuwuYWqzaA+M7cWKzj4HSHFh2zKaveonS9w8I7E+Q0RRmJ1La5GN mnJFvZRJH5ujshMrnBegpkodsWXVgfJRZSeiTGaI3Rpi4VRL6r/pyjyS70OiANcPShAN E1zSArBdNcaYNqh0vpfRtrWfx1r93T1x2ccKtHrJqJAT9L1Sr0LP3YvDvEM9PZVpnKoF d1t6sUdMtiEBb78Ql0wiQA3Vg5/U08kTzAJX0ffkUsNa+C5RXmMoZb6H7x3JSA4hkaZv Tc8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111rk14Fx/6JoWdfQQcdzUasZSpoNAdgQ0BLOswuRhn8jbOHiiYJ 1KhXXq3fZM4cMILre64B5fZKDlU20a+q
X-Received: by 10.36.203.195 with SMTP id u186mr1233342itg.77.1499374242755; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 13:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.32.15 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B5D31169-C18D-4A47-BB82-1A196731F10E@pfrc.org>
References: <20170703175308.hembxkplaniz66wb@Vurt.local> <m2van9z3jp.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC8tPVD20SJ60h-=NGbPMG3Fae2a0TY5rMFb=EnN7H-C6Q@mail.gmail.com> <m2o9t1z1hj.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC_bQitHeR9tHc5tPsXmoSDDLQH764equTAHrP854fYh-A@mail.gmail.com> <BF65C4DC-D2F5-41AF-8454-D43B403E328B@juniper.net> <CACWOCC9cmz7ARnWNowCCEu3Rt_NiyuWgJMZ3pWfmxZ_BO8Ovjw@mail.gmail.com> <292534ED-98BC-49A0-82A2-45B6688F851D@juniper.net> <CACWOCC_KTzJLQAJf_j4ZqM1oJSFq9JcyT7aAPLGf3+2Ess7BBA@mail.gmail.com> <09BFF794-6899-4DA5-8EF5-DDF86513BFBA@pfrc.org> <20170704104840.mg5bflnmmjlv4jbi@Vurt.local> <20C02BA3-5C13-46FB-AFE8-85D61E469EA1@juniper.net> <CA+b+ERmJRbhwa5Eut4+KwxqmAcaBM3fSvL1-zjrxBfZur6QxjA@mail.gmail.com> <1FD8FAE9-E6BF-4C48-BCD6-12C1012827E2@juniper.net> <CA+b+ER=eYJN1HXa+buCB7kR+Byt0iWH6-a20VJ5DjzbQEJrhKQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9d07382674b4ea5b513a3608b6bd85a@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <F55CBE76-FD1D-462D-993A-F2E88E9F3184@juniper.net> <696fbda3aa2b4af9b0fc8f4757e7b541@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <4d8bd5d458db4427a72c15a5ae94cda7@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <8620abbfc6444433b950c4a748fa2fed@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <B5D31169-C18D-4A47-BB82-1A196731F10E@pfrc.org>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 22:50:41 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: mgah3K4lBN6g026xRe56Ik-4Wmk
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnASLmcreuwg0vK6kU=OnrUsswe4VvkXNRQKzZ5XfDjew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0af94c1ffb180553ac4550"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CORltDRXaU1MaRz5x8I6tq_fELI>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:50:46 -0000

Jeff,

Redirect to "write a new draft" is not an option if I need both
reachability based and client to client IX MTU fluctuations based path
selection. And this is a real use case.

//RR.


On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

> Your strawman is about to file a domestic violence restraining order.
>
> These are not our use cases.  If you'd like one, feel free to write a
> draft covering those.
>
> The draft simply proxies information related to BGP's reachability
> condition for a nexthop.  If this was full-mesh, the game would be
> different.  If this was a RR, this would be different.  The RS is (mostly)
> exceptional in this case.
>
>
> -- Jeff
>
> On Jul 6, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> The draft proposes to filter paths from best-path selection
> based upon nexthop reachability.
>
> Why stop at reachability?
>
> A client may not wish to accept routes from another client, because
> they don't have a contract or whatever reason.
> Can we include the ASN of the nexthop with each nexthop?
>
> Other possible reasons for not wanting a route:
> . The AS-path contains an undesirable ASN.
> . The origin AS does not have the right to advertise the prefix.
> . I prefer a customer route over a peer route.
> . The route is a leak.
> . Etc, Etc.
>
> Can you put the whole attribute set into the ReachAsk/ReachTell
> rather than just the nexthop?
>
> Heck, why don't you just send the complete route --> Add-path.
>
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email