Re: [Idr] Slot request in IDR to present https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-idr-bgp-route-refresh-options-00.txt

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 19 July 2016 13:15 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 418D512DFCD for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, 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 Wogkcxi4uxCu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (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 586DA12D869 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id p74so14801260qka.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=YYogL94De3CYxKdAV47IEcmV7WxTm1cfj84AmX5MXI0=; b=kOlPRFXYxd+uG5bXCtQTdMHHlI1L9IxQ+wdzWE1Q8xHEobFb5f/l7N8tjKoxHoXaRW NMk+F62wNBwBcK+w/mUb6t0PeSTMtrjNQllFpwT5bLIUS1bdC55uJtfAxiUTpCJyubkt pxP/c3SszhdXTh9DessuDWyr5I3wjTRplJvQxRcK4byCv/ZG3d9q78Hx0e3igloWzqfY gMie9LeKIP15YJgigG1iX/+Gm7XXqVzbVHw53xTkOrQis22Z95Kv6nUFfTKe9Bzj3XIe Cz3itBVkl7KbCEKEKwwqRTQ3POKmTE2VMd0/sO3YhnfAkvtj0k8PfRK45PxDv86l6a1c uH/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=YYogL94De3CYxKdAV47IEcmV7WxTm1cfj84AmX5MXI0=; b=Saw9EH2Z2L+iQXLDCFcxFS/9SO4iW4DoABGbJUxOde/bgWKWFoGEOCy+FhGHVfYkQ8 0B6w+nXps70YG9hA0cQ1/0ZWl3FPfj87d1Q31SgGpYvIA4a0vpilZrBvtTCGakTwC8u6 0IX9Befmf2O+EJIym4Ew8AjbJ1328Pf/pURtAcTKn+P/jWLSzZEEgQbjKJdXtG01TRWd FyiJxFZXdtCCSZo2/FX8wwiZTKtC6cf4/sNKciE9/rEPDSrcwHL4gS6xFkpOz3TGD+cr otLc87q6cPm/t00SChJkoRtxc3yOS0SJGdO2BSm6WAmwv4mvZoteFll7VkqUnjT9/ger EudQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK7WNQEArjW/PtKIW+jloEgA+a8BKcnwCaRFuKiPd5jKDGXSY8BzCj/bbuhlwtYiPMiksg1DxXVcBysaQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.129.71 with SMTP id c68mr49921818qkd.174.1468933588427; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.36.90 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.237.36.90 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hPy1g6450dTm2RHEv1nVbcyXuYieO0XKhttaWw2kNFeag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+wi2hM+y_K+_50Q_QRS64VBdzgBWtx8hL-6iepsVqed+NtqTw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERm2AnRAYeJRDdsAh=hLX81aQUTVd7Pe5PYLpWmHNvbgtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hMsbVetW_D+HpsdXEHyh75yZkx+QTpj+FoX2hMTcqbrzw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hNk2+GLY0G800Uo8qgdZQWh=9AzFGhZTk+fWRd6isgriw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hPwc=oELuhQpXdEnOAVycn3XRhKZWvJLt6QptRxHCa-2g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ER=+EPeD94TYxEuDYP7rqeLb2RREWQavGENWiG6u5THXDA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hPy1g6450dTm2RHEv1nVbcyXuYieO0XKhttaWw2kNFeag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:06:27 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: zf5EWXofE-BPGCQvsQSHswDdBKE
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnxLSdHozLoadYrni8KSVuqvKiMXQvhHG=YP2K3r3hzxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06266abcae320537fcc0c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/IoalzL9euWckDBPgbR6N9xXOX9o>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Slot request in IDR to present https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-idr-bgp-route-refresh-options-00.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: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:15:11 -0000

Tony

Yes you have RD *prefix* not RD fixed value there which is a good progress
;).

But you just can not use RD to even query prefixes (of those SAFIS which
use it) in any automated way simply as your PE does not know it. Human
could use it but this is I hope not the main motivation of your draft.

So if you want to query say VPN safi you need RT + NLRI not RD. In those
query you would define and use the notion of ANY_RD flag implicitely or
explicitely.

Till someone at next ietf proposes new safi to auto discover all RDs in the
network which I hope will never happen use of RD for filtering or query
should be removed.

Best,
R.

On Jul 19, 2016 2:56 PM, "Tony Przygienda" <tonysietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, agreed in principle on 7.9.
>
> In fact, we were oscillating between RD (with or without prefix length)
> filter + address prefix filter and just 'NLRI filter' but given NLRI we
> need to add RD anyway in there. The RD filter allows you to wildcard the
> RD, i.e. you can e.g. request prefix/address update from your peer without.
>
> We can start to split hair as well that section 8.2.1 does NOT give you
> the flexibility to do anything else but structure the RD ...
>
> Overall, I think the Pandora's box is open and it's better to allow an RD
> filter to at least wildcard RDs ...
>
> --- tony
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>> Tony,
>>
>> Section 7.9 only mentions that RD *MAY BE* structured to include VLAN ID
>> but equally well it says  that it may be locally generated.
>>
>> As someone pointed at this IETF term "MAY" = "MAY NOT" hence any actions
>> based on that is likely to fail.
>>
>> Said this while perhaps someone can use your RD type to manually query
>> the peer for subset of routes then for any automated action .. which is
>> what is really need say when you modify RT import list it will fail.
>>
>> Bottom line I think we should not add elements to protocols which are not
>> guaranteed to work if for nothing else then to reduce operational issues in
>> multi vendor environments.
>>
>> Thx
>> R.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
> the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
> that is not true.*
> —Robert Wilensky
>