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

Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it> Thu, 23 June 2016 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <marco@lamehost.it>
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 E70D8128874 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 7u2IZKsVESRM for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seele.lamehost.it (seele.lamehost.it [80.76.80.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB3D12D126 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by seele.lamehost.it (Postfix, from userid 33) id B77E274391; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:18:36 +0200 (CEST)
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:rcube.php
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:18:36 +0200
From: Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnTKCAu59xyEGPD=EvD0YhNRt8V3vdqaE9UfM33B1E+DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0DE7AB8E-4CFD-44C5-898F-47F48B542599@kuehlewind.net> <575F2704.3050509@foobar.org> <m237ogo5w1.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaaCa9aUOw0HUfyrt05GTYL+yGZum1M=3_4r_E0nx4PqJg@mail.gmail.com> <A65A6088-433D-4200-B098-B2FFEB0A45CD@psg.com> <CAL9jLabgF=h9wSg4GoDoJiT76HcKK2DhpJv=ZxLws7LSs8RN3g@mail.gmail.com> <575FD94E.8030606@foobar.org> <m2inxckqr8.wl%randy@psg.com> <575FF3B9.3080501@foobar.org> <m2ziqnk8b1.wl%randy@psg.com> <20160620131112.GE2950@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ER=yEDkOeYch+6=Zah+N-Hmp8qwfCyw4ZyZZ6VVZ1XNAyA@mail.gmail.com> <acaf236969bfea098089dbfcc397b9fc@lamehost.it> <CA+b+ERnTKCAu59xyEGPD=EvD0YhNRt8V3vdqaE9UfM33B1E+DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e933e8f1fb13aa37a85af2fd096e2a93@lamehost.it>
X-Sender: marco@lamehost.it
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.5
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FgojXwl-MeM_c4SUjfP0130q8dk>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, rraszuk@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Idr] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ie?= =?utf-8?q?tf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:27:47 -0000

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