Re: [Idr] Early allocation for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 21 March 2017 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 204C01293F3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Eq18un7zn-ki for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4E871296E5 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v2LAnZTU013299 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:49:35 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <58D1053E.1040407@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:49:34 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.11 (Macintosh/20170302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <4eedda5c2db74539bd0f949e38cb8b26@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <CACWOCC_JVt_=5mmD5c=D5MWRUsk8TdZOhJ6=F4DG-of-w36U6g@mail.gmail.com> <20170320194414.GD26130@pfrc.org> <20170320201455.micjs4yvzvyoycw6@Vurt.local> <20170320204125.GH28021@pfrc.org> <D637725D-1469-437D-AACB-E4BDB69EB07F@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <D637725D-1469-437D-AACB-E4BDB69EB07F@juniper.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JPueBLbmMA-l3IHdpCXNF37mspk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early allocation for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 21 Mar 2017 10:49:40 -0000

John G. Scudder wrote:
> Although "culling" doesn't discuss how to determine the maintenance
> can proceed, it would seem both prudent and straightforward to do so
> by monitoring the traffic level between the affected peers

this is what is done in practice, yes.  Low tech, but it works fine.

> P.S.: I take no position, in this note, as to whether the suggestion
> in "culling" to filter BGP control traffic as an IX management
> practice is a good one.

Purists will argue that it is a hacky layering violation; but from a
production point of view, it's been found to be an effective way of
eliminating the effects of what can otherwise be highly disruptive work.

Nick