IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Sun, 06 November 2016 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@cisco.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 19AD7129A68 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 15:25:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 C3OKiwR2-9Cq for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 15:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC5F1129A6B for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 15:25:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1098; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1478474753; x=1479684353; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mDn8Hui9Lb4AfYGqRX/gCsMahTtCJs4FoDuSlKYTcPA=; b=ZpTdy87rhA2oj/V+SCaYlBNjquqJ24sOu9LrzKqOEpRWRK0GhhhSS0pr curxE8FINLNh2SR7cQdgKcN8urcBn6Rugl+RlVd1e8So+dgPvRNykDOze BlJzvG+uQstQtyDMLyqt93J1nlKTEcTiB22ToJgZbDZOdPWRrJOfMUgfu 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DJAQCyux9Y/49dJa1dGwEBAQMBAQEJAQEBgy4BAQEBAR+PDKtSggiGJAKCCT8UAQIBAQEBAQEBYh0LhGIBAQQ6TwIBCDYQMiUCBCeIRLMMizsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHoY+gX0IglCER4Mxgi8FmicBkEOQEJEvAR43eoUqiG8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,603,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="166260628"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Nov 2016 23:25:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (xch-aln-014.cisco.com [173.36.7.24]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uA6NPSBs031490 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 23:25:28 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:25:28 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:25:28 -0600
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Vendor Defaults (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHSN546iba0WaPSYk6woE67Sz8aq6DLBUg9gAHyDwD//6OKGg==
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 23:25:27 +0000
Message-ID: <6CAFC026-6102-42BF-97FA-779457D84ECE@cisco.com>
References: <CAH1iCiq6jNtnkta0Bt952EQ9zOKSGt=_cCySsT5XuOKuHYO2nQ@mail.gmail.com> <86860386-9C2B-4BD5-B457-2A6DA5446CF3@cisco.com>, <17E646EF-4633-423B-9AC4-B53D49C90632@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <17E646EF-4633-423B-9AC4-B53D49C90632@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Eajczz9CEwgly7LMRei969eXHno>
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: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 23:25:55 -0000

The question:
Should Large Communities be transmitted across EBGP by default?

Note: there is a knob to change the default, so the discussion is how to act with the knob unconfigured.

Arguments to block:
1. Principle of least surprise: Do same as 1997.
2. Accidental leakage of internally used communities will cause unintended routing.

Arguments to pass:
1. Legacy code will pass it, because the attribute is transitive. Upgrade to LC aware code should do the same by default.
2. It is convenient to pass a community through your first level transit to fix a problem further upstream. A default block frustrates this effort.

The problem of accidental leakage is greater with 1997 communities, because many ISPs use private ASNs. This is as problem if a community intended for a distant ISP is interpreted by a near ISP when they use the same private ASN. This problem SHOULD disappear with Large Communities, because the need to use private ASNs no longer exists.

I would like to hear other arguments and gauge support for each case.

Thanks,
Jakob.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email