Re: [Idr] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-18: (with COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,

You remember correct ‹ there were a number of issues that occurred around
the time that this document got started (I presented about them at NANOG
51 ‹ http://www.slideshare.net/robjs/bgp-error-handling-nanog-51), and I
also edited the requirements document for this work (which is in GROW ‹
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling
-07). 

We also wrote up some recommendations based on the original AS4_PATH
incident (which triggered draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive) which
were on NANOG and IDR -
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2009-January/006816.html and
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg03546.html.

The reason that I think the 2119 wording is in there (and is still
appropriate) is that there are complexities that are introduced
operationally with this mechanism that did not occur before. The previous
behaviour of a failed session makes a bunch of noise, and hence the issue
can be diagnosed and examined. With the treat-as-withdraw approach it¹s
critical for operators to be able to determine when malformed UPDATEs are
being received, and that sufficient information is given to the operator
to resolve the problem. If we do not have these mechanisms, prefixes are
being withdrawn via an (otherwise working) session - with the operator
having no clue this is happening. Needless to say, this would be
undesirable, and hence to avoid it, these recommendations are made.

r.



[06/03/2015 20:48, "Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

>Brian:
>
>My recollection is that there was a lengthy outage caused by a bogus
>route received by IBGP and then sent to the rest  of the world.   Rob
>Shakir may have a better memory.  After the draft deadline, I will look
>for the incident's write-up in NANOG or in my BGP mail archive.
>Therefore, the word RECOMMEND was considered appropriate.
>
>
>Sue 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 3:41 PM
>To: The IESG
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]
>Subject: Brian Haberman's No Objection on
>draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-18: (with COMMENT)
>
>Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-18: No Objection
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thank you for a clearly written document.  The only point I will make is
>that I do not think the 2119 keywords in section 6 are necessary.
>
>
>