IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 06 July 2017 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 EC291131882 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NMCdh8Dg9hV6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA9D131675 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CE641E333; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:49:49 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FDEF7CD5-4419-4CA9-B28D-D21B7FA6B0B0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <8620abbfc6444433b950c4a748fa2fed@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 16:40:31 -0400
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <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>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ElVc9MTUROZIW2zxNHAh7ODtkaE>
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 20:40:34 -0000

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 <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email