Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

[Marco Marzetti <[e-mail]>]

On 2016-06-20 23:56, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Marco,
> 
> Altering AS_PATH indeed does not happen that often. Let's put that one
> aside keeping in mind that practical use cases exists where adding an
> AS is needed which to me precludes "MUST".
> 
> But I can't agree with statement that IXP RS "should be as transparent
> as possible to route propagation" as every IX which assists in routes
> handling offers extensive RS to client (and to some level even client
> to RS) filtering policies.
> 
> Ref:
> https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/ams-ix-route-servers
> 
> That proves black on white that "transparency" is gone. Now the
> question is if we should RFC something which would be completely
> unpractical or unusable ?
> 
> Many thx,
> R.

Robert,

My apologies if it took me so long to reply.

Even if i agree on some of your points we obviously have very different 
opinions.
And it is kinda funny that you've linked a documents that says

"""
Maintain your peering policy
The route server has built in filters that allow you to maintain your 
peering policies
"""

How could I maintain my peering policy if for whatever reasons the route 
server is adding its ASn in the PATH?

Anyway, as said, i agree that the are some very particular cases in 
which that is needed.
On top of all of them: the BGP stacks that rely on that behavior for 
whatever reason.

That said i would like to clarify that i'd really prefer that the author 
use MUST instead of SHOULD (because, in my opinion, we should have those 
stacks fixed instead of adjusting a standard to embrace them) but i 
agree that it may not be advisable for the time being.

So i think that we can use SHOULD and add further clarification that 
explains why that should be avoided when possible.

Regards

-- 
Marco