Re: [Idr] IDR WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server (2/2/2015

Randy,

Flowspec is supported as any other AFI/SAFI by configuration. It is not
left out.

Note that flowspec is a data plane thingy and RS is there not to filter
data plane, but just pass control plane across transparently so it does not
need to be spelled out in this spec.

With path hiding it is different as RS needs to do something to mitigate it
hence add-paths or divers-paths are mentioned explicitely.

Thx,
r.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

> [ remember, i support publication ]
>
> >> i understand your objection and solution, and agree that its more
> >> palatable than a broken forwarding plane.  But, i still think this is
> >> all a bunch of kinky stuff to solve a problem that isnt all that
> >> difficult to handle if the RS doesnt exist.
> >
> > Route servers are not to everyone's taste and no-one will force you to
> > use them if you don't want to.
> >
> > Could we get back to the main point of the draft, which is to
> > formalise the change in BGP behaviour which people have been using
> > since the 1990s to implement RSs?
>
> heas has a lerge network with hundreds of routers.  he can amortize the
> tool maintenance to automate peering configuration at the per-router
> level.  for many folk, that is out of the question.  route servers
> address the latter.  they're a valid use case.
>
> what i don't get is, once you've thrown in add-path and diverse path,
> why it left out flowspec, neighbor discovery, and dhcp options.  this
> could have been simpler; multi-rib is the direct solution.
>
> randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

Re: [Idr] IDR WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server (2/2/2015 - 2/16/2015)