Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 12 October 2016 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 68C9E1294CA for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 td_8ZFLZjwQq for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5207F1294C8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13241; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476270700; x=1477480300; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=BpYNfYqfEWy9Pnpl0VL6dM8tVUjiX0g5pdLucmmLoVQ=; b=bea4Ob7GqmMHBYoSHDYDfrxO+w8X0kU+lFCmFS7lV3IFBQt2L7Q38wY8 H7ULmbyDnX7N7uwI2+qD1Iz5JcUsyoERRBCadVz1mCdbm2g/2E2BsUk0Y FDOKvYTS7kcV/T8H2fn9bzIDHHl2+4r5gKQEg7lrldaZXdxh/had/vqvv E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AWAQAlGf5X/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgwc1AQEBAQEdV3wHjSyXBY8ghRSCDBsBCoV6AhqBfTgUAQIBAQEBAQEBXieEYQEBAQQBAQEgSxcEAgEIDgMDAQEBKAMCAgIlCxQJCAIEARIUB4g1DrYijQYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYsShCoBATuCZIJbBZQohVoBj3yPdYx5g34BHjZOgnMcgVNyAYZDgSCBAAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,333,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217";a="161113672"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Oct 2016 11:11:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9CBBcaF015727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:11:39 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:11:38 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:11:38 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?
Thread-Index: AQHSHx/3C4MhuBw1H0iZDgaAwvyZqqCkGeTLgACapwA=
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:11:38 +0000
Message-ID: <D423912E.825A6%acee@cisco.com>
References: <0E9469C4-2B72-484A-9C93-BC13401F6889@pfrc.org> <003901d21f20$95ece2f0$c1c6a8d0$@ndzh.com> <CAHxMReZQ-t6dFY--CYw-NomyD=Z8uq2p=sjCj99J2Sa6wZDDCw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxMReZQ-t6dFY--CYw-NomyD=Z8uq2p=sjCj99J2Sa6wZDDCw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.200]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D423912E825A6aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/LB8U9j1fNI_S0FA4BOoQldbhltE>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?
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: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:11:42 -0000

Hi Jeff, Rob,

I agree with Rob that WG adoption of large communities in no way implies that attribute scoping is not a requirement and should not also be pursued.

In fact, there may even be hope for wide communities to evolve into the long term solution.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh<mailto:rjs@rob.sh>>
Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 9:57 PM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>, Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?

Jeff,

I am interested in the working group pursuing this draft. The pressure behind large community seems (to me) to be very short-term focused [0]. Operationally, I understand the requirement, but we should also be improving the infrastructure that we have in BGP. There are numerous use cases for BGP, many of which are not Internet DFZ focused. As part of this infrastructure, I believe that in the longer term, we need the ability to do attribute scoping in a more robust way.

The current definitions of non-transitive and transitive are overly coarse for today's heterogeneous networks. It is particularly important to me that we look beyond confederations as the only means of grouping autonomous systems.

Cheers,
r.

[0]: This isn't to say that isn't required, I don't want to debate that any further as I am pretty sure the horse that we're beating is little more than a skeleton at this point. See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16051.html


On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:54 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:
Jeff:

<individual contributor hat on>



My reading of the list that:

a) Large communities meets an "urgent/crisis level need"

b) Wide communities and bgp-attribute-announcement - meet a longer term

need.



Did I miss understand the list's comments?



Sue

-----Original Message-----

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas

Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 11:49 AM

To: IETF IDR WG

Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?



In theory, by adoping draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement, IDR agreed

that attribute scoping was an important issue.



As proven by the working group discussion on BGP large communities, the WG

seems unwilling to consider anything that adds any level of complexity onto

certain proposals.



Should we simply consider this draft dead?



-- Jeff



_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr



_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr