draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt
"Parag Deshpande" <paragdeshpande@sdksoft.com> Thu, 31 October 2002 22:47 UTC
Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18863 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:47:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E28CD912BA; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AE122912BB; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FF8912BA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3EF185DF68; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:47 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from mpls-qmqp-03.inet.qwest.net (mpls-qmqp-03.inet.qwest.net [63.231.195.114]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id B6EED5DF66 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 45266 invoked by uid 0); 31 Oct 2002 22:45:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (63.231.195.3) by mpls-qmqp-03.inet.qwest.net with QMQP; 31 Oct 2002 22:45:17 -0000
Received: from mplsapanas03poolc206.mpls.uswest.net (HELO charita) (65.103.5.206) by mpls-pop-03.inet.qwest.net with SMTP; 31 Oct 2002 22:49:44 -0000
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:57:18 -0600
Message-ID: <013d01c28130$e0b0ed60$cbc8c8c8@sdksoft.com>
From: Parag Deshpande <paragdeshpande@sdksoft.com>
To: idr@merit.edu
Cc: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
References: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024111325.033ba9b8@mail.nexthop.com>
Subject: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi, I am unable to locate the latest bgp draft on ietf site. Where can I get it? I would appreciate if someone could just mail it to me. Thanks, Parag Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06777 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:50:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E28CD912BA; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:48 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AE122912BB; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:48 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FF8912BA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3EF185DF68; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:47 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mpls-qmqp-03.inet.qwest.net (mpls-qmqp-03.inet.qwest.net [63.231.195.114]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id B6EED5DF66 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:49:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 45266 invoked by uid 0); 31 Oct 2002 22:45:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (63.231.195.3) by mpls-qmqp-03.inet.qwest.net with QMQP; 31 Oct 2002 22:45:17 -0000 Received: from mplsapanas03poolc206.mpls.uswest.net (HELO charita) (65.103.5.206) by mpls-pop-03.inet.qwest.net with SMTP; 31 Oct 2002 22:49:44 -0000 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:57:18 -0600 Message-ID: <013d01c28130$e0b0ed60$cbc8c8c8@sdksoft.com> From: "Parag Deshpande" <paragdeshpande@sdksoft.com> To: idr@merit.edu Cc: "Susan Hares" <skh@nexthop.com> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024111325.033ba9b8@mail.nexthop.com> Subject: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi, I am unable to locate the latest bgp draft on ietf site. Where can I get it? I would appreciate if someone could just mail it to me. Thanks, Parag Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA29145 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:31:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BEEB19121B; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:30:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 51E069121F; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:30:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDE79121B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:30:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 215455DF6A; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:30:10 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32B55DE1B for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9VKTms52541; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:29:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9VKTjC52534; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:29:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9VKTj408273; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:29:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:29:45 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Message-ID: <20021031152945.D7533@nexthop.com> References: <20021024183739.38645.qmail@web12802.mail.yahoo.com> <200210291544.KAA42588@workhorse.fictitious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210291544.KAA42588@workhorse.fictitious.org>; from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org on Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:44:47AM -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:44:47AM -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > Doing this or not will not cause interoperability problems since it is > after the IGP cost in the decision. If router A forwards to router B > because the cost to reach the route is shorter through router B, then > router B won't forward back to router A (higher IGP cost). > > This just prevents changing the decision if the route from the lower > BGP Identifier flaps a lot. > > Putting this in the spec as optional would be harmless and useful. I hadn't actually thought about it those particular terms. However, I'll pass along some comments from this last NANOG: Some operators would *really* prefer deterministic route selection. Of course, as you note, if we make it past the IGP cost steps, we are simply choosing stuff based on arbitrary criteria to be deterministic and that some of the implementation changes to introduce temporal ordering are to introduce stability. Potentially competing goals. In response to a comment from a particular lady, I suggested that we should make sure our implementations all show (during your show ip route equivalent) what in the tie-breaking process was used to select a given route. If we actually decided to go with this, it'd be a cool thing to put into the MIB. > Curtis -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA06972 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:45:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8DB679129A; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:44:37 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 56E279129B; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:44:37 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226999129A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:44:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0C30E5DE9F; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:44:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from realname (unknown [203.254.224.24]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12AA5DE4E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:44:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from custom-daemon.mailout1.samsung.com by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.6 (built Oct 18 2002)) id <0H4T00F04XH4OQ@mailout1.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:51:04 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.6 (built Oct 18 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H4T00F42XH4IN@mailout1.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:51:04 +0900 (KST) Received: from Manav ([107.108.3.180]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.6 (built Oct 18 2002)) with ESMTPA id <0H4T0069IXI8DR@mmp2.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:51:46 +0900 (KST) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:12:36 +0530 From: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Subject: Re: inclusion of AS no in AS path To: curtis@fictitious.org, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Message-id: <027601c28097$f080dff0$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200210301647.LAA56058@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, > This is clearly a very special cases that does not have to be > reflected in the base BGP spec. If someone (Merit?) wants to write an > internet-draft describing how a RS uses BGP, that would be fine as a > separate document describing a special usage of BGP in which some of > the base BGP rules are altered. I am *not* at all advocating that you put this in the base spec. My reply was in response to your statement "I can't think of any exceptions". Manav Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13367 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:40:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6BF5D91297; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:36:15 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AD77791294; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:36:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543E291294 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:36:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 228345DDBB; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:36:07 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B115DE54 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9ULa5j21812 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:36:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9ULZvC21782 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:35:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9ULZvL05157 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:35:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:35:57 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: inclusion of AS no in AS path Message-ID: <20021030163557.B5138@nexthop.com> References: <024401c28009$d16148f0$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com> <200210301647.LAA56058@workhorse.fictitious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210301647.LAA56058@workhorse.fictitious.org>; from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org on Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:47:42AM -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:47:42AM -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > This is clearly a very special cases that does not have to be > reflected in the base BGP spec. If someone (Merit?) wants to write an > internet-draft describing how a RS uses BGP, that would be fine as a > separate document describing a special usage of BGP in which some of > the base BGP rules are altered. I believe that the last of the deployed RS's at the public IX's will be decomissioned soon. There are still some private IX's that are utilizing route servers as a method of implementing controlled policy. Being probably one of the few advocates for use of route servers (where appropriate), I think this definitely can slip to an external draft. Its also generally fine because most relevant implementations of routers have a knob for "ignore first as" and so long as people put this in as a "knob complete" feature, all is well. > Curtis -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25420 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:48:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5779291283; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:48:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2B1A991284; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:48:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F9F91283 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:48:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2B7F55DEC9; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:48:33 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B28B5DDE4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA56058; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:47:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210301647.LAA56058@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Cc: curtis@fictitious.org, naresh paliwal <paliwalnaresh@rediffmail.com>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: inclusion of AS no in AS path In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:15:15 +0530." <024401c28009$d16148f0$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:47:42 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <024401c28009$d16148f0$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com>, Manav Bhatia writes : > > > > When advertising to an EBGP peer, a router MUST include its own AS in > > the path. I can't think of any exceptions. > > > > I have seen atleast two implementations which have a flag to bypass this > wherein a router does not append its own AS number even if it is > advertising routes to its EBGP peers. One more scenario when this might > happen is when the remote peer is configured as a route server client. In > that case too, the host speaker does not append its own AS number when > advertising to an EBGP peer. > > Manav Route servers such as those that are available at some of the NAPs act as a filter of BGP information which should be as transparent as possible. These are definitely special cases. The RS, the peer that it learned a route from, and the peer it advertises a route to must all exist on the same broadcast network or the RS must have other assurance that it's two EBPG peers can directly reach each other. The RS passes a third party route, without its own AS to have the same effect as if the RS peers had passed the route directly between themselves. This is clearly a very special cases that does not have to be reflected in the base BGP spec. If someone (Merit?) wants to write an internet-draft describing how a RS uses BGP, that would be fine as a separate document describing a special usage of BGP in which some of the base BGP rules are altered. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA14400 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BBF3391278; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:47:27 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7B7AE91279; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:47:27 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0607191278 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:47:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DF54D5DED6; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:47:05 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687C95DD94 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:47:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT0APP>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:47:04 -0500 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5DB@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'idr@merit.edu'" <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:47:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Alexei, So are you saying it does work on pre-12, or are you just assuming it does because the docs don't say it doesn't? This is getting old, can we drop it or are we going to check all versions of code? The consensus seems to already be that it will not get added to the draft. I am OK with this, although I stand by my original assertion that it should be added as a "MAY" since it represents working code and could affect interoperability; we should at least wait to see if other (non-Juniper/non-IOS) implementations have this limitation as I tried to do initially (before I got stomped by Pedro). :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexei Roudnev [mailto:alex@relcom.EU.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:04 AM > To: Natale, Jonathan; curtis@fictitious.org > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: using default route to reach peer > > > I found this limitation in IOS 12.x only; and I am not sure > if it have any meaning > except protection from dummy admins. Before, they had such notice: > > === > Usage Guidelines > This feature should only be used under the guidance of > technical support staff. > === > > > So, it's not in the CISCO IOS, it's in very last version of > Cisco IOS only. And I > do not think it's a good idea - I can image a situation when > I NEED to use default > routing for ebgp link. > > Alex Roudnev > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> > To: "'Alexei Roudnev'" <alex@relcom.EU.net>; > <curtis@fictitious.org>; "Natale, > Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> > Cc: <idr@merit.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:51 AM > Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer > > > > "The multihop session is not established if the only route > to the multi-hop > > peer's address is the default route (0.0.0.0)." > > > --http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios 120/12cgcr/np1 > _c/1cprt1/1cbgp.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexei Roudnev [mailto:alex@relcom.EU.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:32 AM > To: curtis@fictitious.org; Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: using default route to reach peer > > > > > > > In message > > <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor > > ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > > Folks, > > > > > > IOS does not allow a BGP peer to be reached via the default route. > > > This > ?? Where did you found it? There is not such limuitation in IOS. > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA09763 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:48:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DCFC291276; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:47:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 38A1991277; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:47:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D44291276 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:47:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3F9365DDF7; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:47:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from realname (unknown [203.254.224.24]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E452D5DD9B for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:47:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from custom-daemon.mailout1.samsung.com by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.6 (built Oct 18 2002)) id <0H4S00M01MDGVC@mailout1.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:53:40 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.6 (built Oct 18 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H4S00M7IMDFDO@mailout1.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:53:40 +0900 (KST) Received: from Manav ([107.108.3.180]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.6 (built Oct 18 2002)) with ESMTPA id <0H4S00K7KMEJ53@mmp2.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:54:21 +0900 (KST) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:15:15 +0530 From: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Subject: Re: inclusion of AS no in AS path To: curtis@fictitious.org, naresh paliwal <paliwalnaresh@rediffmail.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Message-id: <024401c28009$d16148f0$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200210291713.MAA42977@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > > When advertising to an EBGP peer, a router MUST include its own AS in > the path. I can't think of any exceptions. > I have seen atleast two implementations which have a flag to bypass this wherein a router does not append its own AS number even if it is advertising routes to its EBGP peers. One more scenario when this might happen is when the remote peer is configured as a route server client. In that case too, the host speaker does not append its own AS number when advertising to an EBGP peer. Manav Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA08183 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:20:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E088791274; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:47 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A284D91278; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:47 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C2F91274 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6F3DA5DD94; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:42 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFCE5DE5E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA08613; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:17:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200210301117.GAA08613@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idr@merit.edu, rpsec@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-white-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:17:17 -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Deployment Considerations for Secure Origin BGP (soBGP) Author(s) : R. White Filename : draft-white-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2002-10-29 There is a great deal of concern over the security of routing systems within the Internet, particularly in relation to the Border Gateway Protocol [BGP], which is used to provide routing information between autonomous systems. This draft addresses various deployment scenarios and options using the extensions to BGP outlined in [SOBGP-BGP] in conjunction with [SOBGP-KEY] (which is not yet completed or published) and [SOBGP-RADIUS]. Each section of this draft discusses a different deployment situation or deployment option. The final section discusses how private key rollovers can be accomplished with no loss of routing information within soBGP deployments. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-white-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-white-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-white-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-10-29125914.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-white-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-white-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-10-29125914.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA08174 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:20:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9BED091275; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:20:09 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 32C0591276; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:20:09 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED54791275 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:20:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D09605DE5E; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:20:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D42B5DD94 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:20:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA08690; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:17:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200210301117.GAA08690@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idr@merit.edu, rpsec@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ng-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:17:37 -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Extensions to BGP to Support Secure Origin BGP (soBGP) Author(s) : J. Ng Filename : draft-ng-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2002-10-29 There is a great deal of concern over the security of routing systems within the Internet, particularly in relation to the Border Gateway Protocol [BGP], which is used to provide routing information between autonomous systems. This document proposes a system where the origin of any advertisement within BGP can be verified and authenticated, preventing the advertisement of prefix blocks by unauthorized networks, and verifying that the final destination in the path is actually within the autonomous system to which the packets are being routed. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ng-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ng-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ng-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-10-29125954.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ng-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ng-sobgp-bgp-extensions-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-10-29125954.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA08146 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F33FE9126E; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:32 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BEE6091274; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:31 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0DE9126E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 64A105DE5E; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4C85DD94 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA08580; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:17:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200210301117.GAA08580@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idr@merit.edu From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-hardie-bounded-longest-match-03.txt Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:17:06 -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Bounding Longest Match Considered Author(s) : T. Hardie, R. White Filename : draft-hardie-bounded-longest-match-03.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2002-10-29 Some ASes currently use length-based filters to manage the size of the routing table they use and propagate. This draft explores an alternative to length-based filters which allows for more automatic configuration and which provides for better redundancy. Rather than use a filter, this draft proposes a method of modifying the BGP longest match algorithm by setting a bound on the prefix lengths eligible for preference. A bound would operate on long prefixes when covering route announcements are available; in certain circumstances it would cause a router to prefer an aggregate over a more specific route announcement. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hardie-bounded-longest-match-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-hardie-bounded-longest-match-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hardie-bounded-longest-match-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-10-29125855.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hardie-bounded-longest-match-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-hardie-bounded-longest-match-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-10-29125855.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA07504 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3A7D791207; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:08:18 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E830B9126E; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:08:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A522891207 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:08:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 898505DEAE; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:08:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from webmail7.rediffmail.com (unknown [202.54.124.152]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CFBD5DD9B for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:08:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 31763 invoked by uid 510); 30 Oct 2002 11:10:16 -0000 Date: 30 Oct 2002 11:10:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20021030111016.31762.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 30 oct 2002 11:10:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "naresh paliwal" <paliwalnaresh@rediffmail.com> Reply-To: "naresh paliwal" <paliwalnaresh@rediffmail.com> To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: "Curtis Villamizar" <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Re: inclusion of AS no in AS path Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, agree! Even rfc 2858 (MPE for BGP4) tells the following: "If such a message is received from an external peer, the local system shall check whether the leftmost AS in the AS_PATH attribute is equal to the autonomous system number of the peer than sent the message. If that is not the case, the local system shall send the NOTIFICATION message with Error Code UPDATE Message Error, and the Error Subcode set to Malformed AS_PATH." This is not specific to MPE feature, then should be included in basic BGP4. -naresh On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 Curtis Villamizar wrote : > >"naresh paliwal" writes: > > > > Is not it useful to check whether an update contains >external > > peer's AS number in AS path attribute, avoiding this may >introduce > > routing loop. > > > > In other words, Are there situations/policies which could >restrict > > a BGP speaker from including his AS number in the route >advertised > > to an external peer ? > > If yes how will routing loop be pruned? > > > > regards > > -naresh > > >When advertising to an EBGP peer, a router MUST include its own >AS in >the path. I can't think of any exceptions. >Curtis > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11056 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DF9B691260; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:26:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AF50F91262; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:26:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A63391260 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:26:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 578FD5DDC0; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:26:44 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE0B5DDB5 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:26:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT96XY>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:26:42 -0500 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5D2@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, naresh paliwal <paliwalnaresh@rediffmail.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: inclusion of AS no in AS path Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:26:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I agree with curtis, a peer must put its AS in maybe referring to outbound pruning that a major vendor does that is not required and that we have reached a consensus on not adding to the draft as a MAY even though the paper the Jeff sent indicates it is good and nobody could answer me why it is bad. ugh pruning is done inbound, always. > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:13 PM > To: naresh paliwal > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: inclusion of AS no in AS path > > > > In message > <20021025121821.32616.qmail@webmail3.rediffmail.com>, "naresh paliwa > l" writes: > > > > Is not it useful to check whether an update contains external > > peer's AS number in AS path attribute, avoiding this may introduce > > routing loop. > > > > In other words, Are there situations/policies which could restrict > > a BGP speaker from including his AS number in the route advertised > > to an external peer ? > > If yes how will routing loop be pruned? > > > > regards > > -naresh > > > When advertising to an EBGP peer, a router MUST include its own AS in > the path. I can't think of any exceptions. > > Curtis > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10709 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B375E9125F; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7CFD891260; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E04C9125F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 13A5C5DDC0; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E3C5DDB5 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT96WN>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:32 -0500 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5D1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Alexei Roudnev'" <alex@relcom.EU.net>, "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org> Cc: "'idr@merit.edu'" <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Also applies to IBGP: Cisco-2500-RtrA#bs BGP router identifier 192.1.1.1, local AS number 4 BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 11.10.2.12 4 4 4 3 0 0 0 00:04:56 Active Cisco-2500-RtrA#ping 11.10.2.12 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 11.10.2.12, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/6/8 ms Cisco-2500-RtrA#sho ip route 11.10.2.12 % Network not in table Cisco-2500-RtrA# > -----Original Message----- > From: Natale, Jonathan > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:52 AM > To: 'Alexei Roudnev'; curtis@fictitious.org; Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer > > > "The multihop session is not established if the only route to > the multi-hop peer's address is the default route (0.0.0.0)." > --http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios 120/12cgcr/np1_c/1cprt1/1cbgp.htm -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Roudnev [mailto:alex@relcom.EU.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:32 AM To: curtis@fictitious.org; Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: using default route to reach peer > > In message > <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor > ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > Folks, > > > > IOS does not allow a BGP peer to be reached via the default route. > > This ?? Where did you found it? There is not such limuitation in IOS. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10307 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BAD709123A; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:13:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 88AC99125F; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:13:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC039123A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:13:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3704F5DEB8; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:13:44 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D065DDB5 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:13:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA42977; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:13:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210291713.MAA42977@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "naresh paliwal" <paliwalnaresh@rediffmail.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: inclusion of AS no in AS path In-reply-to: Your message of "25 Oct 2002 12:18:21 -0000." <20021025121821.32616.qmail@webmail3.rediffmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:13:10 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <20021025121821.32616.qmail@webmail3.rediffmail.com>, "naresh paliwa l" writes: > > Is not it useful to check whether an update contains external > peer's AS number in AS path attribute, avoiding this may introduce > routing loop. > > In other words, Are there situations/policies which could restrict > a BGP speaker from including his AS number in the route advertised > to an external peer ? > If yes how will routing loop be pruned? > > regards > -naresh When advertising to an EBGP peer, a router MUST include its own AS in the path. I can't think of any exceptions. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09123 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:52:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9FABC91201; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:51:53 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 634BA9125C; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:51:53 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E49791201 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:51:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0A90F5DDC0; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:51:52 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACD45DDB5 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT96SN>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:51:51 -0500 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5CF@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Alexei Roudnev'" <alex@relcom.EU.net>, curtis@fictitious.org, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:51:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk "The multihop session is not established if the only route to the multi-hop peer's address is the default route (0.0.0.0)." --http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/np1 _c/1cprt1/1cbgp.htm -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Roudnev [mailto:alex@relcom.EU.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:32 AM To: curtis@fictitious.org; Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: using default route to reach peer > > In message > <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor > ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > Folks, > > > > IOS does not allow a BGP peer to be reached via the default route. > > This ?? Where did you found it? There is not such limuitation in IOS. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07293 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:16:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6059B9125B; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:15:37 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2DE8C9125C; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:15:37 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8659125B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:15:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0CFD45DE52; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:15:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA50F5DDED for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA42716; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:15:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210291615.LAA42716@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: Issue 48 - Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:37 EDT." <20021023105337.D12849@nexthop.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:15:02 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <20021023105337.D12849@nexthop.com>, Jeffrey Haas writes: > > Curtis later proposed this text: > > Most of which I'm in violent agreement with. :-) > > > You're correct in that you must have a collision of IP addresses on > > the TCP connections and that the BGP Identifier is used only to > > resolve which gets dropped. > > Its important to note that BGP Identifier is only important if the > rest of the Open is valid. For example, we must first get past > AS number, hold time values, capabilities, etc. > > > The FSM stays around as long as "BGP Identifier" is not known. > > Or may be immediately aborted if the rest of the OPEN is rejected. To be strictly correct the sentence could be changed to read "The FSM stays around as long as the BGP session and TCP connection are not rejected for other reasons and the 'BGP Identifier' is not known." I don't think this needs to be added since it would seem, at least to me, clear that a FSM would not be retained for a closed TCP connection regardless of the reason it was closed, on FIN/ACK completion, reception of CEASE, OPEN message rejection, or any other reason. > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05874 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:50:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 449C491259; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:50:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1247D9125C; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:50:29 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F629125A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C00E15DE67; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:50:27 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F3B5DE99 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:50:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA42608; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:49:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210291549.KAA42608@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <venug@ctd.hcltech.com>, vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:12:40 PDT." <200210241612.g9OGCem19369@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:49:48 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <200210241612.g9OGCem19369@merlot.juniper.net>, Yakov Rekhter writes : > Venu, > > > Hi, > > It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for > > same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are no > t > > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add > > this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. > > If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't > recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined > in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you > can't take it into account for your route selection. > > In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case > you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the > RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account > various attributes defined in the RR spec). > > Yakov. > > > This is cisco's best path selection algorithm > > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml > > <http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml> > > > > Venu It is also worth pointing out that because RR attributes (CLUSTER_LIST length) are considered after IGP cost, considering it or not does not cause any interoperability problems between RR incapable routers and RR capable routers. Therefore it does not need to go into the BGP spec and the RR spec does not need to be changed. Statements about migration in the RR spec remain accurate. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05671 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:46:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 82B8091258; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:45:32 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4E4DD91259; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:45:32 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F160691258 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:45:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C8C575DE67; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:45:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BFC5DDED for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:45:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA42588; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:44:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210291544.KAA42588@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Cc: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:39 PDT." <20021024183739.38645.qmail@web12802.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:44:47 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <20021024183739.38645.qmail@web12802.mail.yahoo.com>, vrishab sikand writes: > --0-386623435-1035484659=:38642 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > - What about arrival time of a route as decision factor... ? > I believe there are implementations that choose the 'older' route > (whatever that is) before router-id in certain circunstances. Doing this or not will not cause interoperability problems since it is after the IGP cost in the decision. If router A forwards to router B because the cost to reach the route is shorter through router B, then router B won't forward back to router A (higher IGP cost). This just prevents changing the decision if the route from the lower BGP Identifier flaps a lot. Putting this in the spec as optional would be harmless and useful. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA04728 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:28:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 215929125D; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:28:06 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D48689125F; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:28:05 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729489125D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:27:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5A19E5DE87; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:27:58 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D8E5DE6D for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA42536; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:27:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210291527.KAA42536@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: using default route to reach peer In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:00 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:27:22 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > Folks, > > IOS does not allow a BGP peer to be reached via the default route. This > seems like a good rule to me. Is this specified in the/a RFC/Draft > somewhere? Should it be added as a "MAY"? > > Thank You, > -Jonathan I disagree. [ ..cranky stuff omitted per your request.. ] We've already clarified the line in the charter that you keep quoting. We are modifying the draft to reflect current practice only where it affects interoperability. We are documenting current practices that in some way significantly differ from the spec, not ever little Cisco qwirk. Nothing should be added or changed for this. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA23357 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 298A29124C; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:21:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E94689124D; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:21:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06319124C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8196E5DE7E; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:21:23 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038A55DE7C for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA28040; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:19:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200210291119.GAA28040@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idr@merit.edu From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:18:59 -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues Author(s) : S. Brim Filename : draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2002-10-28 This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb useful for working groups dealing with IPR issues. It documents specific examples of how IPR issues have been dealt with in the IETF. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-10-28163526.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-10-28163526.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA27781 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1E16091241; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:03:48 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B54EB9123F; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:03:47 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC6E91241 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 178C45DE28; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:02:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D675DDAF for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:02:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA17312 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:59:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:59:34 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: idr@merit.edu Subject: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v1.5 Message-ID: <20021028155934.E1360@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Greetings, Good news! With this iteration of the issues list we have NO outstanding issues. Over the course of the last week we have resolved the eight issues we had not reached consensus on. Kudos to all, this brings us a big step closer to advancing a draft to the IESG. Andrew --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue_List-v1.5.txt" 2002-10-28 v1.5 Since late August 2002, there has been a push to get any and all issues with the base spec. resolved so the IDR group can move this draft forward to the IESG. This is a list of the issues that have been brought up regarding the base draft, and the current working group consensus on them. All mistakes are mine, please email me at andrewl@cw.net with corrections. Please include the number and the title of the issue in the subject lines of email discussing that issue. It will help in keeping track. N.B. There is no rhyme or reason to the numbering scheme other than unique tags to address the issues. ============================================================================ Table of Contents ============================================================================ 1) IDR WG Charter 2) TCP Port 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID 5) Direct EBGP Peers 6) Disallow Private Addresses 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 12) TCP Behavior Wording 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer 15) Grammer Fix 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 18) IP Layer Fragmentation 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 34) Timer & Counter Definition 35) Fix Typo 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 42) Delete the FSM Section 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 50) FSM Timers 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 64) MED for Originated Routes 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* 68) Outbound Loop Detection ============================================================================ Issues with Consensus ============================================================================ 1) IDR WG Charter 2) TCP Port 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID 5) Direct EBGP Peers 6) Disallow Private Addresses 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 12) TCP Behavior Wording 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer (closed in favor of issue 61) 15) Grammer Fix 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 18) IP Layer Fragmentation 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 34) Timer & Counter Definition 35) Fix Typo 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 42) Delete the FSM Section 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 50) FSM Timers 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 64) MED for Originated Routes 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* 68) Outbound Loop Detection ============================================================================ Issues WITHOUT Consensus ============================================================================ * NO ISSUES * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) IDR WG Charter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: New charter adopted. Discussion: A variety of discussions surrounded the new charter. The rough consensus is to accept the new charter that the AD's have proposed, and to push as hard a possible to get the base spec to RFC status so other drafts that are dependent can also move forward. This thread has messages subjects of "BGP spec and IDR WG charter" and "IDR WG charter". For our information, Alex has provided these aproximate timelines: Stage Anticipated delay Comment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD-review 1--4 weeks The document may go back to the depending on workload WG for the AD-review comments to be addressed; this would introduce additional delay. IETF LC 2 weeks Same as above IESG review& 1--2 weeks depending Same as above telechat on when the IETF LC ends ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that if the document is sent back to the WG at some stage, required changes may warrant an additional WG Last Call. I can personally commit to a 2-week upper bound for the AD-review period. Bill may have a different timer granularity. The opinions expressed on this were 7 in favor, 4 against. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) TCP Port ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change: "BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections." To: "BGP listens on TCP port 179." Discussion: There has been a discussion on clarifying the wording in Section 2, on which port BGP uses. The original text was: "BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections." The proposed new text is: "BGP listens on TCP port 179." There seems to be a rough consensus that the new text is better. This thread has a message subject of "Review: Section 2, TCP Port 179" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary Discussion: An issue was brought up later in the "Review: Section 2, TCP Port 179" thread about the words in the FSM for what state BGP accepts connections in. The consensus is that the existing wording is clear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary to base draft. Perhaps in a BCP. Discussion: The "admin dist/gp spec proposal", "Router ID" and "bgp spec proposal" threads discussed the BGP Identifier and how close or not it is to IGP's Router ID. The consensus was that this discussion is better saved for a BCP draft, and that it does not need to be contained in the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Direct EBGP Peers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: A recollection that ebgp peers must be direct. No text proposed, no discussion. Discussion: Jonathan recalled something that stated that ebgp peers must be direct. No specific sections were quoted. Yakov responded to this with: Section 5.1.3 talks about both the case where ebgp peers are 1 IP hop away from each other: 2) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is one IP hop away from the speaker: as well as the case where they are multiple IP hops away from each other: 3) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is multiple IP hops away from the speaker (aka "multihop EBGP"): And emphasized that multihop EBGP does exist. This came up in the "bgp draft review" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Disallow Private Addresses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": Mentioned explicitly disallowing private addresses. The consensus was that there is no reason to disallow them. Which IP addresses peers use is an operational issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Renumber Appendix Sections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Rename/renumber appendix sections so they do not have the same numbers as sections of the main text. Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": This thread brought up renaming sections in the appendix to avoid confusion with sections of the same number in the main text. Yakov responded that he would do so in the next edition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Jitter Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Get rid of section 9.2.1.3 ("Jitter"). Move the text to an Appendix: "BGP Timers" Expand text to indicate that jitter applies to all timers, including ConnectRetry. The text for the appendix is listed at the end of the discussion. Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": The thread also proposed: "jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval" Be changed to: "jitter should be applied to the timers associated with ConnectRetry timer" Yakov agreed with making some changes and suggested that we make sure that jitter is applied to all timers. Specifically, he proposes we get rid of section 9.2.1.3 ("Jitter"), move the text of this section into Appendix "BGP Timers", and expand the text to indicate that jitter applies to ConnectRetry timer as well. Jonathan, the original commentor, agreed with Yakov's suggestion. In a follow-up to this issue, there was a question raised about the values we have specified for timers in the document. Specifically: The ConnectRetry timer is should have a value that is 'sufficiently large to allow TCP initialization. Application of jitter can reduce the this value (by up to 25%). A configuration which the ConnectRetry timer has been pegged at a value close to TCP connection time may cause a connection to be terminated as a result of this jitter. Is this a cause for concern ? The default value suggested for ConnectRetry (120 seconds) is sufficiently large that event with a jitter of 0.75, it will be greater than TCP'c connection establishment timer. Is adding a jitter to the ConnectRetry timer a standard practice ? What benefit does this provide ? Curtis responded to this with: The TCP connection establishment timer is 75 seconds (sysctl yield "net.inet.tcp.keepinit: 75000" in BSD-oids). The ConnectRetry determines when to make a second attempt after a prior attempt to connect has failed. It is to avoid a rapid succession of retries on immediate failures (for example "Connection refused" if the peer was in the middle of a reboot, Network Unreachable if you can't get there from here, etc) but also covers the case where the TCP SYN goes off and is never heard from again. And Jonathan replied with this information about current practice: It seems to me that if you bring up all bgp peers at once it may lead to load spikes on the network. Cisco seems to wait 27.5 +/- 2.5 seconds for IBGP, and 40 +/- 5 seconds for EBGP--20 sec. from config time to the "open active, delay" jittered delay assignment plus the jittered delay (5 to 10 sec. for IBGP, and 15 to 25 sec. for EBGP). This would also apply for "no neighbor x.x.x.x shutdown". Their value of ConnectRetry is 60sec. though, not sure how this value is used (based on above). Maybe some Cisco folks can chime in on this one??? I did not check Juniper. Also, interestingly, they do not apply jitter to the other timers (as far as I can tell), but I don't see a problem with this. Another timer that they use that is not mentioned in the draft/rfc is the next hop resolution timer which is 30 seconds. Although it would be nice to have this in the spec, I will concede that it is out of scope and/or implementation dependent. So the question that arises from this followup, is how does this question affect the text of the appendix on jitter? Curtis replied that we need to only state that jitter should be applied to all timers. Whether a vendor does so or not is a minor deficiency and does not bear on interoperability. Therefore, specifying exact details are not necessary. After Jonathan's response Curtis and Jonathan agreed that jitter should be added to all timers and that we should state so in the text. Yakov proposed the following text for the appendix to discuss jitter: I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker shall apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter will not be applied on a "per peer" basis. The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. Jeff & Ben agreed with this. Justin suggested that we move the range from 0.75 to 1.25 to ensure that the average is around the configured value. Yakov agreed with Justin's changes. Jonathan disagreed, arguing that it was out-of-scope for the task of clarifying the text only. Justin agreed and withdrew his comment. Curtis liked the general text, but suggested these modifications: minor improvement (not really an objection) -- s/suggested value/suggested default value/g Also s/shall apply the same jitter/may apply the same jitter/ (to each of these quantities regardless of ...). s/jitter will not be applied/jitter need not be configured/ (on a "per peer" basis). He stated that in Avici's implementation they allow a lot of granularity in timer settings, so this reflects current practice. Curtis also suggested changing the last paragraph: The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. This would make it clear that it is possible to have this timer as configurable and still be within spec. Other comments on Yakov's text pointed out that IOS uses 5 seconds as the default IBGP MinRouteAdvertisementInterval. Tom pointed out that there seems to be a discrepency between this text and the FSM: The FSM has an OpenDelay timer. And the FSM suggests a HoldTimer of 4 minutes. In following up on this issue, Yakov stated: Here is the final text for the BGP Timers section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested default value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested default value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested default value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested default value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested default value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker may apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per peer" basis. The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. Jonathan suggested adding "per peer" to the text, Yakov responded with this text: An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable on a per peer basis, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. This proposal met with general agreement. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add a reference to RFC904 Discussion: The "Review Comment: Origin Attribute pg 14" thread suggested adding a reference to RFC904(?), to refer to the EGP protocol. There was no discussion. Yakov agreed to this, and Jonathan seconded it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add this to 9.2: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and may choose to log an error locally. Discussion: The "Extending AS_PATH attribute length en route" thread brought up the issue of what action should we specify when we receive a route with an AS_PATH that exceeds the defined maximum length. There was some discussion, and it was suggested that, after logging the error, the route not be propegated. Yakov stated that: The real issue here is how to handle the case when a route (a single address prefix + path attributes) doesn't fit into 4K bytes (as the max BGP message size is 4 K). To address this issue I would suggest to add the following to 9.2: After some discussion, Yakov's proposed text's last sentance was dropped and we arrived at: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker may choose not to advertise the route to its peers. In response to Andrew's clarification question to the list, Curtis responded: Wording would be more like: If the attributes for a specific prefix becomes too large to fit the prefix into the maximum sized BGP UPDATE message, the prefix should not be advertised further. Truncation or ommision of attributes should not occur unless policies for such modifications are specifically configured. Such policies may contribute to the formation of route loops and are not within the scope of this protocol specification. After some additional discussion, it was decided that we add "and may choose to log an error locally." to the end of Yakov's text. Also, we agreed to change "may choose not to advertize..." to "MUST NOT advertise...". So the text on the table right now is: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and may choose to log an error locally. This met with one agreement and no disagreements. We have a consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add this text: The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. When the new BGP route is installed in the Rout- ing Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to the same destination that are now considered invalid are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new BGP route replaces an existing non-BGP route in the Routing Table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker. Discussion: The "Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3" thread brought up some lack of clarity in the section discussing the rules for which routes get propegated from the Loc-RIB into the Adj-RIB-Out. These discussions resulted in a number of suggestions for new text. The first new text was proposed to clarify the issue that the thread first brought up: I agree that this could use some clarification. How about adding to b) in section 9.1: The Loc-RIB must contain only one route per destination; further, it must include all routes that the BGP speaker is using. changing c) in section 9.1.2 to: c) is selected as a result of the Phase 2 tie breaking rules specified in 9.1.2.2, or and adding d) when routing protocols other than BGP are in use, is determined by some other local means to be the route that will actually be used to reach a particular destination. This text was never discussed or a consensus formed on putting it in the document. This modification to 9.1.2 was also proposed to address the same concern: How about changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 to: The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. This route SHALL then also be installed in the BGP speakers forwarding table. There was one response in the negative to this change, arguing that is is not necessary. Yakov replied to this that: Wrt "adding to b) in section 9.1", the second part (after ";") is redundant as this point is already stated in 3.2. Wrt the first point about Loc-RIB containing just one route per destination, I would suggest to add it to section 3.2, where Loc-RIB is first introduced, rather than adding it to 9.1. Wrt "changing c)... and adding...", I have no objections to add/modify the text, as suggested above. I am not sure though that changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 is really necessary though, so I would prefer to keep it as is. The "issue 11" thread this was being discussed in then digressed to the topic, now covered in issue 11.3. Ben readdressed the original issue with this input: I have somewhat of an issue with the paragraph after item c section 9.1.2 as discussed. which is => "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. If the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table (as a result of the local policy decision), care must be taken to ensure that invalid BGP routes to the same destination are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new route replaces an already existing non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker." Can we assume that its OK to have a route present in the Loc-RIB and possibly in the adj-RIB-Out but not in the Routing table due to some policy. Won't we violate rule number 1? Only advertise what you use. As conversly implied in this sentence => "If the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table (as a result of the local policy decision), care must be taken to ensure that invalid BGP routes to the same destination are removed from the Routing Table" I would rephrase the paragraph as follows => "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. When the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to the same destination that are now considered invalid are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new BGP route replaces an existing non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker." Jeff replied: With the exception that Routing Table should be capitalized throughout, I'd suggest we take this as consensus. Yakov agreed. We are at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: The text below will be added to the -18 version. Discussion: In further discussions around this issue, this text was also proposed: How about adding to section 9.1.3, at the end: Any local-policy which results in reachability being added to an Adj-RIB-Out without also being added to the local BGP speaker's forwarding table is beyond the scope of this document. This suggestion received one response that agreed to this change. This text will be added to the -18 version, and since there were no objections, this issue has been moved to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add this text: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. Discussion: Additionally this thread produced this section of new text, in section 2: <OLD> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." Should be changed to <NEW #1> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only routes whose NLRIs are locally reachable." <NEW #2> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only routes which are locally reachable. Local reachability can be achieved by having any protocol route to the given destination in the routing table." There were a lot of emails exchanged on this topic with a variety of texts proposed (see early in the "Active Route" thread). This issue reopend with Jonathan, who brought up the issue originally, stating that: The issue I raised, and would like to be [re-]considered is with: "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." Curtis replied that: That is called route orgination and it is allowed by: 9.4 Originating BGP routes A BGP speaker may originate BGP routes by injecting routing information acquired by some other means (e.g. via an IGP) into BGP. [...] The decision whether to distribute non-BGP acquired routes within an AS via BGP or not depends on the environment within the AS (e.g. type of IGP) and should be controlled via configuration. Advice on what to put in the AS_PATH and NEXT_HOP is in the document. He continued with: I don't think there was ever consensus on what to do with the statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses". Some reasonable choices are: 1. Omit it (the implied consensus of the rewrite of the paragraph in 32.2). 2. Leave it as is and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. 3. Clean up the wording and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. The separate paragraph for 2 would be the exact sentence we now have. A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. In possibility 3 we (try to) clear up the ambiguity about the meaning of the word "use" in this sentence. A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. In this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is either directly used in forwarding or in a specifically configured case where the BGP route would be forwarded internally but IGP forwarding information is used. The latter case reflects a usage in which the IGP is used for forwarding but BGP is originated to IBGP to carry attributes that cannot be carried by the IGP (for example, BGP communities [N]). Other special cases such as virtual routers and multiple instances of BGP on a single router are beyond the scope of this document but for each of these the statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses" can (and should in the definition of the extension) be made true with an appropriate definition of the word "use". Unless someone volunteers better wording this may be a good starting point. I thing the last sentence borders on ridiculous in a protocol spec but may be necessary to address specific objections raised on this mailing list. If we want to elaborate on the meaning of the word "use" and address the objections this is what we end up with. Of course looking at what we ended up with, I'd also go along with the other two options (leave it out or put the one sentence in a separate paragraph as is). After some additional discussion (in the "issue 11.2" thread), we have come to a consensus on this text: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: The documenting of IBGP Multipath is left to another Internet Draft. The consensus is that it should not be in the base spec. Discussion: This thread began in the "issue 11" discussion. In it it was proposed that: There is support in some router vendors to allow more than one BGP route to be installed, for the purpose for load balancing. Given that this is a current practice, and seems to be a useful feature as well, should we insist that only one route be installed in the Loc-RIB ? I would like to suggest that all sections which use MUST in the context of only one route in Loc-RIB be relaxed a little to a SHOULD, and a section added that states that it is possible for a n implementation to add more than one route to the Loc-RIB for the purposes of load balancing. While it will be useful to describe how this situation is the handler, it is perhaps sufficient to even state that handling of this situation is outside the scope of this RFC. I am including some proposed text for this purpose: For the part: > The Loc-RIB must contain only one route per destination; consider instead, % The Loc-RIB SHOULD contain only one route per destination. % An implementation may choose to install multiple routes to % a destination (for the purposes of load balancing). The % handling of such a configuration, however, is outside the % scope of this RFC. Perhaps, this can be in section 3.2 instead. After much discussion back and forth, it was agreed that documenting IBGP Multipath behavior is a good thing. However, it is something that belongs in another draft. Alex opened this issue up again. There were a flury of responses, most all of them agreeing with the original consensus that we should document this feature in a different draft, since it doesn't affect the core interoperatbilty requirements, and we want to advance the spec in a timely manner. Alex persisted in his assertion that this belongs in the base specification. Right now, the issue is still open. This discussion later expanded in scope to include all BGP multipath. Curtis laid out a good description of the various flavors of multipath: In addition to IGP multihop, there are two cases of BGP multipath. In IGP multihop there is one BGP advertisement but to ways to reach th BGP NEXT_HOP via the IGP. In one case of BGP multihop, two (or more) IBGP routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a destination and are an equal cost away from a third router. BGP multihop is applicable to that third router. Without BGP multihop, BGP would normally pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP Identifier) and use that. The IGP lookup would yield one next hop. With BGP multihop, BGP uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of both advertisements. Each BGP NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop). The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP multipath are external. Seldom does IGP multipath come into play for EBGP (odd tunneled EBGP mutlihop cases maybe). Typically the load is split among two (or more) routers in the same AS. If in EBGP multipath you split among routers in difference AS, an aggregate should be formed. This is still prior to the IGP cost rule in the route selection. Normally one would not combine IBGP and EBGP in multihop given that the decsion point for multihop is after "d" in 9.1.2.2. If the multihop decision was prior to "d", then two routers each with an external peering would forward some of the traffic to each other and for some src/dst pairs, they'd form a loop. [So don't do that!] This is getting to be a lot to add to the base spec. I hope we've convinced you that we should put it in another document. Curtis later added specific text, that could serve as a start for the new document (or added to the base spec if the consensus ended up going the other way): BGP specifies how to select the single best route. OSPF specifically defines procedures for handling equal cost multipath (ECMP) [cite OSPF]. The same technique has been applied to ISIS. A similar technique has been used with BGP. Variations exist but the decision to support BGP multipath, the specific variation of BGP multipath, or not to support it, does not affect interoperability. A naive implementations of ECMP can cause severe performance degradation for TCP flows. To avoid this, implementations of BGP multipath SHOULD maintain packet ordering within microflows as described in [cite rfc2991, rfc2992]. BGP multipath, if implemented, SHOULD be disabled by default. In addition to IGP multipath (OSPF ECMP and ISIS equivalent), there are two variations of BGP multipath described here. A BGP implementation may offer both, either one, or neither variation of BGP multipath. Other variations of BGP multipath may exist, but no guarantees can be made in this protocol specification of their properties or impact on interoperability. Where IGP multipath is used, there is an interaction with BGP learned routes. The lookup of a BGP NEXT_HOP in the IGP can result in the selection of an IGP multipath entry. This is not a variation of BGP multipath. When this occurs, one BGP route is slected as the best but there is more than one way to reach the BGP NEXT_HOP via the IGP. In one variation of BGP multipath, a set of more than one IBGP routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a destination and are an equal IGP cost away from a second set of one or more routers. BGP multipath is applicable to the latter set of routers. Without BGP multipath, BGP would pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP Identifier) and use only that BGP route. With BGP multipath, BGP uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of more than one of these equal cost advertisements, yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Each BGP NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop if IGP multipath is in use). The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP multipath are external and learned by a single BGP peer. Without BGP multipath this peer would select only one of the BGP routes and obtain only one BGP NEXT_HOP. With BGP multipath, more than one equal cost route is selected yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Seldom does IGP multipath come into play when looking up an EBGP NEXT_HOP but could in principle be applicable. If in EBGP multipath traffic is split among routers in difference AS, an aggregate SHOULD be formed so as to propogate a route with an accurate AS_PATH. If the resulting aggregate is not more specific than the components, the AS_SET SHOULD NOT be dropped. The decsion point for multipath is after step "d" in Section 9.1.2.2 (prefer externally learned routes). IBGP learned and EBGP learned routes MUST NOT be combined in multipath. If the multipath decision is prior to "d", then two routers each with an external peering would form a routing loop. The decision point for multipath is generally after step "e" in Section 9.1.2.2. Some relaxation of the "equal cost" rule (also applicable to IGP multipath) is possible. In addition to the equal cost BGP NEXT_HOPS available at BGP route selection, if the IGP next hop for other BGP NEXT_HOPs are of lower cost, then those may be used as well. This relaxation of the step "e" is possible but is not widely implemented (and may not be implemented at all). The consensus of the majority of the IDR WG is to keep this in a seperate draft and out of the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) TCP Behavior Wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: In issue 19 we decided to remove this section entirely. As a result the previous consensus on this issue (no change) is renderd moot. Discussion: The subjectless "your mail" thread discussed a wording clarification from: "An implementation that would "hang" the routing information process while trying to read from a peer could set up a message buffer (4096 bytes) per peer and fill it with data as available until a complete message has been received. " To something that is more TCP-correct, such as: "An implementation that would "hang" the routing information process while trying to received from a peer could set up a message buffer (4096 bytes) per peer and fill it with data as available until a complete message has been received. " (only change: "read" to "received" This was one of a couple of suggested changes.) This suggestion was quite contentious, and although there were a variety of alternate texts proposed, the only consensus was that this was a very minor issue, and probably not worth changing. In issue 19 we decided to remove this section entirely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) Next Hop for Originated Route ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No reponses, assumed consensus to keep things the same. Discussion: There was a one-message thread entitled "next hop for originated route". This message received no reponse, so the assumption is that there is a consensus to keep things as they are. For related discussion see issue 61. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Closed in favor of issue 61. Discussion: The thread entitled "NEXT_HOP to internal peer" starts with this question: When sending a locally originated route to an internal peer, what should NEXT_HOP be set to? One response suggested that we add a line stating that the NEXT_HOP address originates from the IGP. Since this issue and issue 61 are basically the same, except 61 proposes text, we'll close this issue in favor of 61. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) Grammer Fix ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change: "The Prefix field contains IP address prefixes ..." To: "contains an IP address prefix ..." Discussion: The thread entitled "Review comment: bottom of page 16" corrects a grammer mistake by suggesting we change: "The Prefix field contains IP address prefixes ..." to: "contains an IP address prefix ..." Yakov responded that this will be fixed in -18. The consensus seems to be to correct this, and go with the new text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Need to add a Table of Contents (ToC), Glossary and Index to the draft. Will be added in draft -18. Discussion: The "Review Comments: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" thread suggests: 1. Document needs, Table of Contents, Glossary, and Index 2. Paths, Routes, and Prefixes need to be defined in the spec early on (like in a glossary), so it is obvious what is implied. Yakov responded that draft -18 will have a ToC and definition of commonly used terms. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add references to other RFC-status BGP docs to the base spec. Discussion: The "Review Comments: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" thread then changes titles to: "Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" and goes on to suggest: 3. All BGP Extensions described in other documents that made it to RFC status should be at least referenced in the Reference section P.64. This is justifiable since it's the core BGP standard spec. Yakov responded that this will be added to the -18 review. Jonathan agreed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) IP Layer Fragmentation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No need to mention IP Layer Fragmentation in the BGP specification, since this is taken care of at the TCP level. Discussion: 1. P.6 section 4. Message Formats, its possible for the source BGP peer IP layer to fragment a message such that the receiving BGP peer socket layer would have to reassemble it. Need to mention this, since BGP implementations are required to do this. The response to this was that, while true, reassembly is something that is inherent in the TCP layer that BGP rides over. Therefore, this is something that is in the TCP spec, and needn't be repeated in the BGP spec. This comment was reaffirmed. There seems to be consensus that this isn't something that needs to be in the BGP spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Remove the section entirely, as this is something that does not belong in the base spec. Discussion: This first came up in reponse to Issue 17: There was one comment suggesting that section 6.2 (Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol" mentioned this. The original reviewer reponsed that the out-of-scope comment was out-of-place and refered the reponder to section 6.2 (appendix 6) The original reviewer stated that he is happy with just adding a reference to section 6.2 in appendix 6 and leaving it at that. Curtis suggested we just add a reference to Stevens in appendix 6. 6.2 and be done with it. Specifically: 6.2 Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol BGP uses TCP as a transport mechanism. If you are unsure as to how to handle asynchronous reads and writes on TCP sockets please refer to Unix Network Programming [RWStevens] or other introductory text for programming techniques for the operating system and TCP implementation that you are using. There were further suggestions to remove the section entirely as out-of-scope. At least 3 people agreed with this. Alex responded that he sees no reason to remove it, but wouldn't have a problem if the WG decides to do so. There seems to be general agreement that this section should be removed. N.B. This also affects issue 12. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: A small change for clarity in section 4.3 Discussion: This suggestion grew out of the discussion on Issue 18. The following change was suggested in section 4.3, second line of the first paragraph: s/UPDATE packet/UPDATE message/ Yakov agreed to this change and updated the draft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) Authentication Text Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that additional references to RFC2385 are not necessary. Discussion: P. 10, "Authentication Data:" section you might want to add this, It is also possible to use MD5 (RFC2385) at the transport layer to validate the entire BGP message. Yakov replied to this: There is already text that covers this: "Any authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms." .... "In addition, BGP supports the ability to authenticate its data stream by using [RFC2385]." So, I see no need to add the text proposed above. Ishi agreed with Yakov. Jonathan disagreed since he thought no one uses BGP auth. Ishi replied that there are lots of people who do use it. Jonathan replied with a clarification question: "Who uses *BGP's own* authentication mechanisms???" Ron Bonica replied that they use BGP auth. There was some additional discussion over who implements simple password authentication vs. MD5. After further discussion, the consensus seems to be that we should leave the text as it is for the reasons Yakov pointed out. There was some discussion over opening a new issue to discuss deprecating the BGP auth mechanism discussed in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism in RFC2385. The issue of Depricating BGP AUTH is discussed in issue 62. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: This is already being covered by text that has been added to the -18 draft. Discussion: P. 12, right after "Path Attributes". The following sentence should be added to this section to clarify the scope of the Path Attribute field. "All attributes in the Path Attribute field represent the characteristics of all the route prefixes defined in the NLRI field of the message". Yakov replied to this that: This will be covered by the following text in 3.1 that will be in the -18 version (see also issue 54). Routes are advertised between BGP speakers in UPDATE messages. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Therefore there is no need to add the sentence proposed above. There were no objections to this statement, so this issue has been moved into consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: For various reasons, not least of which is compatability with existing implementaions, the decision was made to keep thing the way they are. Discussion: 4. P.16, last paragraph in section 4.3 as stated, "An UPDATE message should not include the same address prefix in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields, however a BGP speaker MUST be able to process UPDATE messages in this form. A BGP speaker should treat an UPDATE message of this form as if the WITHDRAWN ROUTES doesn't contain the address prefix." This complexity could have been avoided if withdrawn routes and NRLI prefixes with their attributes were mutually exclusive of each other and appeared in different update messages. If that was the case, the priority of which field to process first would have been as simple as using "first come, first served" message processing approach. Yakov commented that this would make the case where they are both in the same message unspecified. John commented that this is something we don't want to change this late in the game. Although it was acknowledged that this might be a good change if we were working from a clean slate. Ben acceeded that this was somewhat wishful thinking on his part. Curtis's comment seems to coincide with this message, stating: The existing rules are very clear. Summarized: If an UPDATE contains only a withdraw for a prefix, then withdraw whatever route the peer had previously sent. If an UPDATE contains the prefix only in the NRLI section, replace whatever route had previously been advertised by the peer or add a route if there was no previous route, in both cases adding a route with the current attributes. Don't put the same prefix in the same in both the withdraw and NRLI section of the same update. If you receive an UPDATE with the same prefix in both the withdraw and NRLI, ignore the withdraw. [Some older implementations thought this was a good way to say "delete then add".] Process UPDATEs from the same peer in the order received. And goes on to say, that to him, these rules are clear from the existing text. Consensus is that while this would be nice, we need to stick with what we have, and move on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the following to section 3.1: Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Discussion: 5. P. 20 Its not stated how we delete or modify Path Attributes associated with NLRI prefixes. A response to this comment said that this is implicit in the definition of "route" and the general withdraw/replace behavior and therefore doesn't need to be repeated. Ben responded saying that, while there was an assumption, there was no well defined mechanism, and this leads to ambiguity. John reponded, no need to define everything explicity, or we'll be here forever. Picking this thread up again, Yakov argued: By *definition* a route is a <path attribute, NLRI> pair. From that definition it follows that changing one or more path attributes of a route means changing a route, which means withdrawing the old route (route with the old attributes) from service and advertising a new route (route with the new attributes). Procedures for doing this are well-defined (see section 3.1), and therefore no new text to cover this is needed. Jonathan agreed with this statement, but Ben argued that the text in section 3 is insufficent the way it is currently written. After two iterations, Ben and Yakov agreed on this formulation for an update to section 3.1: Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Jeff objected somewhat to the wording, since, because of a bgp route is defined as a <path attribute, NLRI> pair, changing either part of that pair, by definition, changes the route. He acknowledged that this might fall under the category of implementation detail. Yakov presented the view that he thought we were at consensus with the text he proposed above. Jonathan agreed. There were no objections, so this is moved to Consnesus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: After reponders pointed out another sentance, this comment was resolved. Things will stay the way they are. Discussion: 1. P.28, 2nd to last paragraph. The line that reads, "To be semantically correct, the IP address in the NEXT_HOP must not be the IP address of the receiving speaker, and the NEXT_HOP IP address must either be the sender's IP address (used to establish the BGP session), or the interface associated with the NEXT_HOP IP address must share a common subnet with the receiving BGP speaker..." This is not always true, what if the current ASBR BGP router is advertising an external AS route (to a IBGP Peer) whose NEXT_HOP IP address is the IP address of the EBGP peer in the other AS? A response to this pointed out that right before this is a sentance stating that this only applied to eBGP links, and only when the peers are one hop from each other, so a modification is unnecessary. This reponse was confirmed with another. The original reviewer acknowldeged this and withdrew the comment. The consensus is to leave things the way they are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: After some discussion, the consensus is to keep things the same since the suggested behavior is defined in the message format. Discussion: 2. P. 29, Section 6.3. Add this rule near the attribute rules. "Multiple prefixes that require the same attribute type with different values must never appear in the same update message". A response to this suggested that this text is unnesessary since this behavior is ruled out by the way the message format is defined. The original commentor agrees with the reponder. The consensus is to leave things the way they are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: It is agreed that this is a change that exceeds the original goal of this draft revision. This goal is to document existing practice in an interoperable way. Discussion: 3. P. 29, Section 6.5, Please rewrite this sentence from: "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or NOTIFICATION messages within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message ..." To This: "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or any other BGP message within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message ..." There is disagreement on this change. It has been discussed in other threads. The original commentor acknowledged that this is something that would be "adding a new feature" as opposed to the stated goal of "documenting what exists." He suggested that the ADs decide if we should open the door for new features or not. Yakov replied to this that he would suggest we keep things as is, since the purpose is to document current implementations. This did not meet with any objections, so this issue has been moved into consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that changing the BGP Identifier in the base draft is out-of-scope at this point in the draft evolution. Discussion: 4. P. 31, section 6.8, Please rewrite this sentence from: "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as (4-octet long) unsigned integers." To This: "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as large numbers based on their IP Address type (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, etc.)." A reponse to this was that since BGP Identifier is defined in the base spec as a 4 byte unsigned integer, and not a variable quantity, the sentance as written is acceptable. This was also confirmed by another response. The original commentor was thinking of IPv6, and providing sufficent space to allow a full v6 address to be used. Again, reponders said that this is out-of-scope for the current draft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add: "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence on p. 46. Discussion: 5. P.46, last sentence, "However, corresponding unresolvable routes SHOULD be kept in the Adj-RIBs-In." It would helpful if the author states why unresolvable routes should be kept in Adj-RIBs-In? A reponse to this stated "In case they become resolveable" Yakov responded that: I suggest we add "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence on p. 46. The original commentor stated that: Then the point that the peer will not refresh the route if we drop them (unless we use Route Refresh) because they are unreachable should be made. Yakov also responded that: This should be clear from the following text in Section 3: The initial data flow is the portion of the BGP routing table that is allowed by the export policy, called the Adj-Ribs-Out (see 3.2). Incremental updates are sent as the routing tables change. BGP does not require periodic refresh of the routing table. Jonathan, who was the original commentor, agreed with both the changed text and the clarity of section 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) Mention Other Message Types ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add a reference to RFC2918 at the end of the type code list. Discussion: 1. P. 7 Type: Need to add the new message types such as, Capability Negotiations (RFC2842), Route Refresh, etc. One reponse argued that these are out-of-scope of the base document. One reponse agreed, but thought that it should be capability and not message type. The original commentor reponsed about Message type from the capability draft. Sue mentioned this would be added in the second round. Yakov replied that: The only new message type that is covered by an RFC (rather than just an Internet Draft) is the Refresh message. With this in mind how about replacing the following: The following type codes are defined: 1 - OPEN 2 - UPDATE 3 - NOTIFICATION 4 - KEEPALIVE with This document defines the following type codes: 1 - OPEN 2 - UPDATE 3 - NOTIFICATION 4 - KEEPALIVE [RFC2918] defines one more type code. Jonathan agreed with this change. This issue has been moved to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) Add References to Additional Options ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Consensus to add: [RFC2842] defines another Optional Parameter. Discussion: 2. P. 9, right after "This document defines the following optional parameters:" Need to mention possible options, such as: Capabilitites (RFC2842), Multiprotocol extensions (RFC2858), Route Refresh (RFC2918). One reponse agreed that adding references would be fine. A second reponse agreed. Yakov replied that: Please note that only rfc2842 defines an OPEN optional parameter. Neither rfc2858 nor rfc2918 defines an OPEN optional parameter. With this in mind I would suggest to add the following text: [RFC2842] defines another Optional Parameter. The original poster agreed with this modification. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) Clarify EGP Reference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that this was addressed in 32.1, so we can close this. Discussion: 3. P. 13, EGP, are there other EGP protocols other than BGP that are in use? If not, change EGP to BGP. A response to this suggested that we add a reference to [1] (the EGP spec) here. Another reponse clarified that this refers to EGP-the-protocol and NOT the class. Another response disagreed, but suggested that: IGP = network was explicitly introduced into bgp (network cmd) INCOMPLETE = network was implicitly introduced into bgp (redistribute) EGP = other The original commentor thought that this refered to EGP-the-class of protocols. And why not use BGP therefore, as the only EGP. There was some disucssion over whether or not we should mention something that is historical. Jeff suggested a footnote in the Origin section about EGP. Curtis suggested that we state that the EGP in ORIGIN is deprecated, but retain the value to document what it used to mean. This reviewer thinks a statement about whether this "EGP" origin refers to the protocol or the class or protocols would be useful. Yakov replied that an EGP reference will be added (see issue 9). Yakov also stated that he doesn't see what is wrong with the current text, and suggsted we keep it. This includes leaving out any reference to the status of the EGP spec. He sees that it is clear from context that we are talking about "the EGP" [RFC904]. Jeff noted that this issue has been sufficently addressed in the solution to 32.1. This met with agreement. We are at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change section 5.1.1 to read: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value SHOULD NOT be changed by any other speaker." Consensus to change: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol to: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] Discussion: This discussion is picked up again in the "Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17" thread, where specific text is proposed: Old: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - Network Layer Reachability Information is interior to the originating AS 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol 2 INCOMPLETE - Network Layer Reachability Information learned by some other means" New: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - NLRI was explicitly introduced into bgp 1 EGP - this value was administratively configured to affect policy decisions or NLRI was learned via the EGP protocol [1] 2 INCOMPLETE - NLRI was implicitly introduced into bgp" since: 1) The network command sets the origin to IGP and I remember seeing somewhere that only static routes should be set to IGP. 2) The primary use of EGP value is policy 3) EGP seems to still exist, anyway even if it does not it is not worth re-writing the world. Also, change: "5.1.1 ORIGIN ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the autonomous system that originates the associated routing information. It shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." to: "5.1.1 ORIGIN The value of the ORIGIN attribute shall be set by the speaker that originates the associated NLRI. Its value shall not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." since: 1) It is already defined as well-known mandatory attribute. 2) It may be set differently within the same AS (not saying this is good). 3) It is commonly used for policy, but by default does not get changed. 4) Speakers have no choice, it is mandatory. After much continued discussion on this in the "issue 32.1" thread, we seem to have come to a consensus that section 5.1.1 should read: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." This text met with a number of agreements, and one disagreement stating that we shouldn't have the "unless administratively configured" portion. After some further discussion, we have this text on the table: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers. Jonathan suggested that we change "propagate this information" to "forward this route". He also mentioned that he would prefer something more explicit instead of/in addition to "The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." such as "other speakers do not change the ORIGIN value." On the issue of making the EGP ORIGIN type more clear Andrew proposed: To me, there seems to be sufficent confusion around the "EGP" reference to merit some sort of clarification. The simplest modification would be to change: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol to: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] That would clarify that we're talking about the protocol, and not the class-of-protocols, or EBGP. It would leave unstated that this could theoretically be used to muck with route selection. I think that is ok. If operators want to override ORIGIN to affect some hoho magic, they are welcome to do so, but I don't think it needs to be documented in the base spec. This met with a number of agreements. On the second text section we are working on, Jonathan objected to the current working text below and suggested an alternate: CHANGE: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." TO: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." -or- "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker." Jonathan cited a recent example of someone who was still confused by this section of the text in -17 (not specifically the working text). Yakov proposed this as final text: In 4.3: a) ORIGIN (Type Code 1): ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - Network Layer Reachability Information is interior to the originating AS 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] 2 INCOMPLETE - Network Layer Reachability Information learned by some other means Usage of this attribute is defined in 5.1.1. In 5.1.1: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value SHOULD NOT be changed by any other speaker." This met with agreement. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: After much discussion, this is the consensus: This text in the current draft: To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet. will be replaced in -18 with the following text: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to be enforced*. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond that neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Discussion: In response to these proposals, Yakov proposed that the real problem is that it is not clear that BGP is build to support the destination-based forwarding paradigm. To fix this, it was propsed that: <OLD> To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet. <NEW> Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Curtis thinks the newer text here is more clear. In reponse to the new text, Christian Martin propsed a slightly different new text: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS based on prefixes originating from the local AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. To which Yakov replied: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring AS to some destination (which is outside of the neighboring AS, but is reachable through the neighboring AS) intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by the traffic to the same destination that originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. And Chris reponsed: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring AS to some destination beyond the neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic to the same destination which originates in the neighboring AS. In other words, the BGP policy of a local AS cannot affect the downstream (aka, away from the local AS) forwarding policy of a remote AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Tom Petch prefered Yakov's second formulation, with these changes: policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic ! to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond ! that neighboring AS intending that ! the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic ! originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Yakov agreed to Tom's suggested changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to MED Section Add "well-known mandatory" to the NEXT_HOP Section Discussion: 4. P.23, change the following: "The MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS ..." To the following: "The MULTI_EXIT_DISC is an optional non-transitive attribute which may be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS ..." A reponder disagreed, and stated reasons "covered elsewhere" Original commentor asked for reasons, since the modification seemed obvious to him. Yakov agreed to make this change in -18. Jonathan replied that: 5.1.3 NEXT_HOP also, it is missing " well-known mandatory". Yakov also agreed to make this change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) Timer & Counter Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No discussion, no text proposed, defaults to consensus for no change. Discussion: 5. In section 8, there are a number of Timers, Counters, etc. that need to be explicitly defined before they are used by the FSM. Perhaps these definitions should go in the Glossary section. There has been no further discussion on this issue. Unless it is brought up again, this issue is in consensus, with no change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35) Fix Typo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix a Typo. No discussion, but this seem clear. Discussion: 1. P. 41. Typing error, "Each time time the local system...". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: This change requires a glossary. Yakov has committed to having a section where commonly used terms are defined in draft 18, so this issue is at consensus. Discussion: 2. Section 9.1, Need to have Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out, and Loc-RIB in the glossary, so when they are used in section 9.1, it is well understood what they are. Yakov replied: will be added to the section "Definition of commonly used terms" in -18 version. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the following terms to the "commonly used terms section": Feasible route A route that is available for use. Unfeasible route A previously advertised feasible route that is no longer available for use. Discussion: 3. P. 45, Phase I, There is no definition of what are unfeasible routes? Are they the same as withdrawn routes? If so, the two should be combined to one name. Ishi replied to this that he thought that we could combine the two terms, since there is limited difference from an implementation standpoint. Yakov replied: The routes are withdrawn from service because they are unfeasible, not because they are "withdrawn". So, we need to keep the term "unfeasible" to indicate the *reason* why a route could be withdrawn. On the other hand, "withdrawn" is used as a verb, and to the best of my knowledge "unfeasible" can't be used as a verb. With this in mind, I don't think that we can combine the two into a single term. Ishi replied that he was convinved, and that the terms should stay seperate. Andrew asked the list if we should define these terms in the "commonly used terms" section in draft -18. Ben replied that if we use them alot, we should define them, and if not local definitions will suffice. There was some back and forth about the necessity of defining terms which should be obvious. mrr actually checked the doc to see if we were consistantly using the terms, and found: It turns out there there is an inconsistancy in the usage of the word withdrawn. Section 3.1: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been withdrawn from service: ... b) a replacement route with the same NLRI can be advertised, or ... Later, in the definition of Withdrawn Routes Length, we have: A value of 0 indicates that no routes are being withdrawn from service, Taken together, this could be construed as meaning that a Withdrawn Routes Length of 0 indicates that all routes included in the UPDATE represent newly feasible routes... not replacement routes. Now, it's possible that this problem has been removed by changes to the text that have not yet been incorporated in to a new draft; however, it arose because the text, for the most part, does _not_ use "withdrawn" in the standard way. Instead, it refers to routes included in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field of an UPDATE message. Consequenty, I propose defining a "withdrawn route" as follows: Withdrawn route: a route included in the WITHDRAW ROUTES field of an UPDATE message. Regardless of whether or not this definition is included, Section 3.1 shold be changed from: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been withdrawn from service: to: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been removed from service: or: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route is now unfeasible: After some further off-list discussion, mrr agreed that this inconsistancy is extremely minor, and withdrew his comment. feasible and unfeasible route will be defined in the "commonly used terms" section to clear up any confusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Consensus that the issue was suffiecently minor to leave things alone. Discussion: 4. P. 50, line, "If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out the previously advertised route in that Adj-RIB-Out must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)." Would like to rephrase the sentence for clarity, "If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out and was previously advertised via Adj-RIB-Out, it must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)." One comment suggested either leave it alone, or remove "via Adj-RIB-Out". The original commentor withdrew the comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix typo & parentheses. Discussion: 5. P. 50, section 9.1.4, The two fragments of this sentence are redundant and don't say anything new or simplify the content. Just keep one fragment. "A route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix) is said to be more specific than a route describing a larger set of destinations (a shorted prefix); similarly, a route describing a larger set of destinations (a shorter prefix) is said to be less specific than a route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix)." There was a comment that disagreed, thinking that both "more specific" and "less specific" need to be defined. And suggested that only the third and forth parentheses need to be dropped. The original commentor agreed with the parentheses changes. Yakov agreed to drop the third and fourth parentheses in the -18 version. Jonathan replied to this: Disagree, the text if fine the way it is, except you need to change "shorted" to "shorter". After minimal further discussion, it was decided we are at a consensus on this issue to fix the typo and drop the third and fourth parentheses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that current practice allows for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval to be set per peer, so the text should be kept the same. Discussion: 6. P. 52, section 9.2.1.1 Change this sentence for clarity, "This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-destination basis, although the value of MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is set on a per BGP peer basis." To This: "This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-destination basis, although the value of MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is set on a BGP router (same value for all peers) basis." There was a comment disagreeing with this proposal. It was later elaborated on to include that the reason for diagreement was that the proposed changes changed the protocol and not just a practice clarification. Ben reponded asking for how this is a protocol change, he saw it as a clarification. Perhaps there is something deeper that needs to be clarified? Again, response to this is that current implementations allow the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval to be set per-peer, not per-router. Original reviwer conceeded the point. There was some additonal discussion on this point. Most of it was along the lines of extracting what was really implemented and supported among various vendors. The conclusion was the same. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No discussion on this issue. No text proposed. Perhaps this is in the FSM section of the draft? Either way, it defaults to consensus with no change. Discussion: 7. P. 61, item 6.4. Although all the BGP protocol interfacing timers are mentioned, there are a few FSM internal timers mentioned in the spec that need to be covered here as well. There has been no discussion on this, it now defaults to consensus with no change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42) Delete the FSM Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: There was some confusion on the question: Is the FSM draft going to be a seperate document, or incorporated into the base draft. The consensus is that it is going to become part of the base draft, so the FSM section will be kept, and elaborated on. Discussion: 8. Since there is going to be an FSM spec, do we need to have FSM descriptions in this spec. Maybe the FSM section should be delete. There was one response agreeing with this. One reponse asking for claificaiton: Was this a move to remove section 8. Finite State Machine from the base draft?? The original reviewer said, yes, when Sue's FSM draft becomes a WG document, we should remove section 8 from the base draft. Yakov asked that the AD's provide input on this suggestion. Alex responded saying that the FSM draft is going to be part of the base spec, and not another document once the FSM words are approved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace: "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." With: If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer. Discussion: The "NOTIFICATION message error handling" thread proposed: Please change" "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." To: "If a peer receives a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." This reversal of meaning met with disagreement, and this text was proposed instead: All errors detected while processing the NOTIFICATION message cannot be indicated by sending subsequent NOTIFICATION message back to originating peer, therefore there is no means of reporting NOTIFICATION message processing errors. Any error, such as an unrecognized Error Code or Error Subcode, should be noticed, logged locally, and brought to the attention of the administration of the peer that has sent the message. The means to do this, however, lies outside the scope of this document. The original posted agreed with the intent of the respondant's text, thought it was too wordy, but did not propose alternate text. Yakov replied with this propsed text: If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer. Two responses liked this new text. Unless there are objections, we'll consider that a consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: One commentor observed that the spec seems to specify behavior that doesn't seem to be observed by extant implementations, and suggested modifications to the spec. They were later reminded that the base behavior is acceptable, and agreed. Discussion: The "BGP4 draft ; section 6.2" thread began with a discussion of section 6.2: OPEN message error handling. Specifically: "If one of the optional parameters in the Open mesage is not recognized, then the error subcode is set to 'unsupported optional parameters" We have hit on this line when we were testing a BGP connection between a speaker that supported capability negotiation and a speaker that did not. The speaker that did not support the neogotiation closed down the peering session using the error clause mentioned above. Sometimes this lead to the other router to repeat the OPEN message with the Capability optional parameter; a game that went on for minutes. This router manufacturer stated in a reply to this that : "One should not close down the connection if an optional parameter is unrecognised. That would make this parameter basically mandatory. This is an well known error in the BGP spec. Neither Cisco or Juniper do this" If this is true it might be good to adapt the text. The response to this quoted RFC2842, Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4: A BGP speaker determines that its peer doesn't support capabilities advertisement, if in response to an OPEN message that carries the Capabilities Optional Parameter, the speaker receives a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Subcode set to Unsupported Optional Parameter. In this case the speaker should attempt to re-establish a BGP connection with the peer without sending to the peer the Capabilities Optional Parameter. The original poster responded: This section from the Capabilities Advertisement RFC, is indeed inline with the section 6.2 of the BGP4 specification. For me however the question remains if most implementations do no simply ignore optional parameters that are unknown. And if so, if the text stated above reflects what is implemented by routers that do not have capability advertisement at all. Yakov replied to this with: RFC2842 assumes that a router (that doesn't implement RFC2842) would close the BGP session when the router receives an OPEN message with an unrecognized Optional Parameter. Therefore the text in the spec should be left unmodified. The original poster, Jonathan, agreed with this. This issue moves to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Stick with "BGP Connection" as the consistant term. Discussion: Ben proposed and Yakov responded: > 1. Throughout the document we have various ways of naming the BGP > peering communication. 1) BGP Session, 2) BGP Peering Session, I'll replace "session" with "connection". > 3) TCP Connection, The spec doesn't name BGP peering communication as "TCP connection"; TCP connection is used to establish BGP connection. So, TCP connection and BGP connection are two different things. > 4) BGP Connection, The spec is going to use this term (see above). > 5) BGP Peering Connection, I'll replace "BGP peering connection" with "BGP connection". > 6) Connection, The text uses "connection" whenever it is clear from the context that it refers to "BGP connection" (or "TCP connection"). > 7) BGP Speaker Connection. I'll replace "BGP Speaker Connection" with "BGP connection". > > BGP router: 1) BGP Speaker, 2) speaker, 3)local speaker The term "speaker" is used when it is clear from the context that we are talking about "BGP speaker". > 2. Change Internal peer to IBGP Peer. IBGP stands for "BGP connection between internal peers". Therefore the term "IBGP Peer" would mean "BGP connection between internal peers peer". That doesn't seem appropriate. This issue has had some discussion, and section 3 was referenced, specifically: Refer to Section 3 - Summary of operations which clearly states that " .. a peer in a different AS is referred to as an external peer, while a peer in the same AS may be described as an internal peer. Internal BGP and external BGP are commonly abbreviated IBGP and EBGP" After more discussion it was decided that we should modify a paragraph on page 4 to read: If a particular AS has multiple BGP speakers and is providing transit service for other ASs, then care must be taken to ensure a consistent view of routing within the AS. A consistent view of the interior routes of the AS is provided by the IGP used within the AS. For the purpose of this document, it is assumed that a consistent view of the routes exterior to the AS is provided by having all BGP speakers within the AS maintain IBGP with each other. Care must be taken to ensure that the interior routers have all been updated with transit information before the BGP speakers announce to other ASs that transit service is being provided. This change has consensus. > 3. Change External peer to EBGP Peer. Ditto. Alex responded that haveing explicit definitions would be nice. This ties into the general glossary suggestion (see issues 16, 34 & 36). He also suggested that: "BGP session" which works over a "TCP connection" would be closer to the terminology we're actually using now and would avoid possible confusions when people read terms like "Connection collision") This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. After some further discussion, it was decided that, due to existing implementations, we should go with "BGP connection" as the consistant term. We are at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add this to section 8: There is one FSM per connection. Prior to determining what peer a connection is associated with there may be two connections for a given peer. There should be no more than one connection per peer. The collision detection identifies the case where there is more than one connection per peer and provides guidance for which connection to get rid of. When this occurs, the corresponding FSM for the connection that is closed should be disposed of. Discussion: The original reviewer (Tom) commented that the base draft, FSM section, could use some clarification around the area of connection collision detection. Specifically, he argued that it seems like there are actually 2 FSM's depending on which one backs off in the case of a collision. He proposed this text to clear things up: "8 BGP FInite State Machine This section specifies BGP operation - between a BGP speaker and its peer over a single TCP connection - in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before) Instead of just "This section specifies BGP operation in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before). Curtis responded: There is one FSM per connection. Prior to determining what peer a connection is associated with there may be two connections for a given peer. There should be no more than one connection per peer. The collision detection identifies the case where there is more than one connection per peer and provides guidance for which connection to get rid of. When this occurs, the corresponding FSM for the connection that is closed should be disposed of. I'm not sure which document containing an FSM we should be reading at this point, but we could add the above paragraph if we need to explicitly state that the extra connection and its FSM is disposed of when a collision is detected. When a TCP accept occurs, a connection is created and an FSM is created. Prior to the point where the peer associated with the connection is known the FSM cannot be associated with a peer. The collision is a transient condition in which the rule of "one BGP session per peer" is temporarily violated and then corrected. This is discussed in the "FSM but FSM of what?" thread. Sue responded that she would be happy to add Curits' text to section 8 and solicited any additional comments. There was only one on capitilization, so this issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: A desire for explicit state change wording was expressed. No text was proposed. The assumption is that this issue has reached a happy conclusion. Discussion: The initial reviewer: In most places, the actions taken on the receipt of an event include what the new state will be or that it remains unchanged. But there are a signficant number of places where this is not done (eg Connect state events 14, 15, 16). I would like to see consistency, always specify the new/unchanged state. Else I may be misreading it. There was a reponse asking for specific text, and offering to take the discussion private. This is discussed in the "FSM words - state changes" thread. There has been no further discussion on this. The assumption is that is has reached a happy conclusion privately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add text that is at the end of the discussion to section 8. Discussion: Alex suggsted we explicity define: - processing of incoming TCP connections (peer lookup, acceptance, FSM creation, collision control,) Curtis later proposed this text: BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. For each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is not known with certainty. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same peer may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each peer plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. Jonathan pointed out that there was an inaccuracy in the proposed text. Curtis replied with this: You're correct in that you must have a collision of IP addresses on the TCP connections and that the BGP Identifier is used only to resolve which gets dropped. The FSM stays around as long as "BGP Identifier" is not known. Replace "not known with certainty" with "known but the BGP identifier is not known" and replace "for the same peer" with "for the same configured peering". The first paragraph is unchanged: BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. The second paragraph becomes: A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. For each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier is not known. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same configured peering may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). The next paragraph then needs to get fixed. Changed "for each peer" to "for each configured peering". A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. Add a paragraph to further clarify the point you made. There may be more than one connection between a pair of peers if the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" to the same peer. > So multiple simultaneous BGP connection are allowed between the same two > peers, and this behavior is implemented, for example to do load balancing. Good point. I hope the corrections above cover your (entirely valid) objections. If you see any more errors please let me know. Tom replied that: I take issue with the 'will attempt to connect' which goes too far. The FSM defines events 4 and 5, 'with passive Transport establishment', so the system may wait and not attempt to connect. The exit from this state is either the receipt of an incoming TCP connection (SYN) or timer expiry. So we may have a FSM attempting to transport connect for a given source/destination IP pair or we may have an FSM not attempting to connect. (In the latter case, I do not think we can get a collision). In the latter case, an incoming connection should not generate an additional FSM. I do not believe the concept of active and passive is helpful since a given system can flip from one to the other and it does not help us to clarify the number of FSM involved.. And Curtis suggested that: Could this be corrected by replacing "will attempt to connect" with "unless configured to remain in the idle state, or configured to remain passive, will attempt to connect". We could also shorten that to "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise". Clarification (perhaps an item for a glossary entry): The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for almost a decade and have proven useful. The words active and passive have slightly different meanings applied to a TCP connection or applied to a peer. There is only one active side and one passive side to any one TCP connection as per the definition below. When a BGP speaker is configured passive it will never attempt to connect. If a BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't matter which end was active and which end was passive and the only difference is which side of the TCP connection has port number 179. Tom agreed with Curtis, that he liked the "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise" verbiage. This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. Sue proposed we add the text above in section 8.2. It is summarized here for clarity: 8.2) Description of FSM 8.2.1) FSM connections (text below) 8.2.2) FSM Definition (text now in 8.2) "BGP must maintain a separate FSM for each configured peer plus Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection unless configured to remain in the idle state, or configured to remain passive, will attempt to to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussion, the active or connect side of the TCP connection (the side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listening side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called an incoming connection. [See section on the terms active and passive below.] A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. Fro each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier is not known. During this time, both an incoming and an outgoing connection for the same configured peering may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. There may be more than one connections between a pair of peers if the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" to the same peer. 8.2.1.1) Terms "active" and "passive" The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for almost a decade and have proven useful. The words active and passive have slightly different meanings applied to a TCP connection or applied to a peer. There is only one active side and one passive side to any one TCP connection per the definition above [and the state machine below.] When a BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't matter which end was active and which end was passive and the only difference is which side of the TCP connection has port number 179. For additional text, see issue 46. Sue solicited additonal comments, the only one was on capitiziation, so it would appear we are at consensus with this issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49) Explicity Define Event Generation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Suggested that we explictiy define BGP message processing. No text proposed. There has been no further discussion on this issue, it is assumed that the consensus is that things are ok the way they are. Discussion: Alex suggsted we explicity define: - generation of events while processing BGP messages, i.e., the text describing message processing should say where needed that a specific event for the BGP session should be generated. No text was proposed. This discussion has received no further comment. Unless someone wants to reopen it, it is assumed it has reached a happy ending. This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50) FSM Timers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Discussion tabled, because new document version rendered the discussion moot. Discussion: This discussion began with a suggestion that the timers currently in the FSM: In the 26Aug text, I find the timer terminology still confusing. Timers can, I find, stop start restart clear set reset expire Can be cleaned up and simplified to: start with initial value (spell it out just to be sure) stop expire A reponse to this proposal was, that the existing set is clear, and that the proposed set is insufficently rich to describe a concept like "reset" which encompases: "Stop the timer, and reset it to its initial value." This discussion reached an impasse, when Sue pointed out that the text had been updated, and to please review the new text. This was discussed in the "FSM more words" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Discussion tabled, because new document version rendered the discussion moot. Discussion: This started with the observation that the ConnectRetryCnt "seems to have lost its purpose." It was suggested that this be made a Session Attribute, along with: OpenDelayTimer and DelayOpenFlag. Curtis explained that the current purpose of the ConnectRetryCnt is something to be read by the MIB. He also advocated against adding the additional Session Attributes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. Discussion: This thread started with a question about why we should retain routes in the Adj-RIB-In, and how it relates to the Route Refresh extention. mrr proposed this text: ... Therefore, a BGP speaker must either retain the current version of the routes advertised by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. This is necessary to allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without requiring the reset of any peering sessions. If the implementation decides not to retain the current version of the routes that have been received from a peer, then Route Refresh messages should be sent whenever there is a change to local policy. Yakov later suggsted this text, with a slight rewording: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. mrr reponded that he was fine with Yakov's suggestions. This was discussed in the "Proxy: comments on section 3" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The text that has reached consensus in issue 54 also addresses this issue. Discussion: This issue arose out of this question to the list: Since: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are the systems whose IP addresses are reported in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message." When I read section 4.3: "An UPDATE message is used to advertise feasible routes sharing common path attribute to a peer, or to withdraw multiple unfeasible routes from service (see 3.1)." Shouldn't the text read "... advertise feasible [prefixes | destinations] sharing common path attribute(S)to a peer ...", because: 1) A route is defined as quoted above from section 3.1? or since ... "An UPDATE message can advertise at most one set of path attributes, but multiple destinations ..." 2) make "routes" in the orignal singular. This was discussed in the "Review Comments: Section 4.3: "routes" vs. destinations - advertise" thread. The text that has reached consensus in issue 54 also addresses this issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change the definition of "route" as it currently stands to: For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are contained in one IP address prefix carried in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE message and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Discussion: This issue was brought up with this question: When I read these two paragraphs at the end of section 4.3: "An UPDATE message can list multiple routes to be withdrawn from service. Each such route is identified by its destination (expressed as an IP prefix), which unambiguously identifies the route in the context of the BGP speaker - BGP speaker connection to which it has been previously advertised. An UPDATE message might advertise only routes to be withdrawn from service, in which case it will not include path attributes or Network Layer Reachability Information. Conversely, it may advertise only a feasible route, in which case the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field need not be present." It reads as if one must withdraw the _set of destinations_ advertised with the route instead of just one or more destinations since route is defined in section 3.1 as: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are the systems whose IP addresses are reported in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message." Shouldn't the text change "routes" to destinations, or to prefixes? The original commentor added this clarificaiton later: I meant to say, the *same* set of destinations as those advertised initially. For example, NLRI with dest-a, dest-b and dest-c with the same attributes is a "route". The withdrawal of the "route" can be read as one must withdraw all destinations originally advertised for that route (dest-a, dest-b, dest-c) as a unit. A first time reader could be left wondering if the above must be the case, or it is valid for an implementation to withdraw just one of these destinations (e.g. dest-b), leaving the others (dest-a, dest-c) reachable with their attributes intact. If there is no relationship between destinations when advertised as a set of destinations in a route and those destinations that can be withdrawn should be explicitly stated. Otherwise, the draft should call out that it is not legal to withdraw one prefix only in the set of prefixes advertised as previously as route. Matt suggested that since the definition seems to cause some confusion, that we update teh definition to: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are reported in one prefix present in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. This definition allows multiple routes to be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE. All such prefixes must be associated with the same set of path attributes." Yakov suggested some minor rewording: For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are contained in one IP address prefix carried in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE message and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Both Jeff and Matt responded that they liked this text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace: Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs in the path segment value field. With: Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (not the number of octets) in the path segment value field. Discussion: This question was raised: Length fields elsewhere in the draft specify the number of bytes that a variable length field uses. For AS_PATH, length is used as the number of 2 byte AS numbers. In the interest of not having to check other sources to be sure, should the descripton of path segment value: "The path segment value field contains one or more AS numbers, each encoded as a 2-octets long field." explicitly mention the number of bytes used by the variable length field? Or, make the description of length explicitly mention that it is not the length of the variable length field as is the case with other length fields? One respone to this agreed that some more clarification would be good, specifically an ASCII art diagram. No diagram was proposed. Yakov proposed this change: How about replacing Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs in the path segment value field. with the following Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (but not the number of octets) in the path segment value field. Jonathan offered this text: How about: "Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (which is half the number of octets since each AS is 2 octets) in the path segment value field (also note that the path may contain more than 1 segment). Jeff replied that he prefered Yakov's text, but without the "but". Yakov agreed to that. Andrew also agreed, and asked if there were any objections to moving this issue into consensus. There were no objections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: There are a variety of updates to the text that are best described in the discussion section. Discussion: This discussion began with some suggestions on ways to clarify the text in section 6 dealing with error handling. The original comments, and Yakov's response are below: > At the beginning of Section 6. BGP Error Handling: > > > "When any of the conditions described here are detected, a > NOTIFICATION message with the indicated Error Code, Error Subcode, > and Data fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed." > > There are several cases where the conditions described in this section > do not result in the BGP connection being closed. These conditions > should either state that the connection stays up. Another possibility > is to remove "and the BGP connection is closed." above, and for each > listed connection, state what happens to the BGP connection. This > already takes place for certain conditions, but isn't done consistantly. How about replacing the above with the following: When any of the conditions described here are detected, a NOTIFICATION message with the indicated Error Code, Error Subcode, and Data fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed, unless it is explicitly stated that no NOTIFICATION message is to be sent and the BGP connection is not to be close. > > > I tried to list what I found (which may be wrong or incomplete) below: > > > > "If the NEXT_HOP attribute is semantically incorrect, the error should > be logged, and the route should be ignored. In this case, no > NOTIFICATION message should be sent." > > * Append the connection is not closed. Done. > > "(a) discard new address prefixes from the neighbor, or (b) terminate > the BGP peering with the neighbor." > > * Append "the connection is not closed" to case (a) added "(while maintaining BGP peering with the neighbor)" to case (a). > > "If > the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be > stored in the Adj-RIB-In," > > * append and the BGP connection stays up. > > "but unless the router is configured to > accept routes with its own autonomous system in the AS path, the > route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." I would suggest to move this text to Section 9 (UPDATE message handling), as receiving a route with your own AS in the AS path isn't really an error. It is just that usually (but not always) you can't put this route in your Adj-RIB-In. > > * Q1) does the BGP connection stay up? yes. > * Q2) what if the router isn't configured to accept routes with its own > AS in the AS path? One _may_ store the route in Adj-RIB-In, but if one > doesn't want to? So, don't store them. > Is the BGP connection closed? If so, what subcode? The connection is *not* closed. > "If an optional attribute is recognized, then the value of this > attribute is checked. If an error is detected, the attribute is > discarded, and the Error Subcode is set to Optional Attribute Error. > The Data field contains the attribute (type, length and value)." > > * Append and the BGP conneciton stays up after "the attribute is discarded". Since you have to close the connection, you have to discard all the routes received via this connection, including the route with the incorrect attribute. So, there is no need to say that "the attribute is discarded". There have been no objections to the updates listed above. This issue seems to have reached a happy ending, so it has been moved into consensus. This was discussed in the "-17 review Section 6 - BGP Error Handling." thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: It was suggested that we update the text to say that we MUST reject hold time values of zero. It was pointed out that this is not the case and the text should say the way it is. Discussion: In Section 6.2 on OPEN message error handling: If the Hold Time field of the OPEN message is unacceptable, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Unacceptable Hold Time. An implementation MUST reject Hold Time values of one or two seconds. I feel that text similar to: "An implementation MUST also reject Hold Time values of zero received from a peer in a different AS" should be considered for completeness. A number of respondants pointed out that zero hold time is legitimate under certain circumstances. This was discussed in the "-17 review, Section 6.2 - must reject hold time" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: For new text, please see the end of the discussion. Discussion: Jeff opened this discussion with: Deprecation of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: [This is a summary of some discussions from those who have "been there, done that" during the CIDR deployment period and also comments from network operators on the NANOG list.] When BGP-4 was originally drafted, the topic of aggregation was new enough that people didn't exactly know how it would be used. Additionally, there were some transition issues when aggregated networks would need to be de-aggregated and re-advertised into a classful routing mesh such as BGP-3. The ATOMIC_AGGREGATE flag was intended to prevent a route from being de-aggregated when de-aggregation would introduce routing loops. Note that de-aggregation in this context specifically means making a less specific route into one or more more-specific routes. The current BGP draft has two situations where ATOMIC_AGGREGATE should be appeneded to a route: 1. When a route's AS_PATH is intentionally truncated, such as what happens by default on Cisco's, or using the "brief" option on GateD. Juniper has a similar feature - I'm unsure of the default. 2. When two routes are implicitly aggregated in the LocRib such that a more specific route is not selected when a less specific route is from a given peer. Note that this particular feature is not implemented anywhere that I am aware of. 3. There is a third case not covered by the specification: Implicit aggregation on export - a more specific route is not exported and only a less specific one is. When network operators were asked about de-aggregation practices, I received about 40 responses. The majority of these responses confused de-aggregation with leaking existing more-specific routes that are used internally rather than explicitly de-aggregating a less-specific route. There were a very few cases of explicit de-aggregation. One form was done for purposes of dealing with another ISP creating a routing DoS by advertising IP space that didn't belong to them - leaked more specifics alleviated the problem in many cases. (Note that this is a security issue in the routing system.) The second case was de-aggregating routes internally (and sending the routes via IBGP marked with NO-ADVERTISE) for purposes of traffic engineering routing internally where a given upstream failed to provide enough routing information to allow traffic flows to be optimized based on supplied prefixes. My conclusions to this are: 1. De-aggregation is not a common practice. 2. It is no longer a major concern since classful inter-domain routing is pretty much gone. 3. The spec doesn't match reality and should be corrected. My suggestions are thus this: Section 5.1.6 should be updated as follows: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. Its use is deprecated. When a router explicitly aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated (usually due to truncation), the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. Section 9.1.4 should be updated as follows: Original text: : If a BGP speaker receives overlapping routes, the Decision Process : MUST consider both routes based on the configured acceptance policy. : If both a less and a more specific route are accepted, then the : Decision Process MUST either install both the less and the more : specific routes or it MUST aggregate the two routes and install the : aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same value of : the NEXT_HOP attribute. : : If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add : ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries : ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the : NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along : such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually : traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Replace with: It is common practice that more specific routes are often implicitly aggregated by selecting or advertising only a less-specific route when overlapping routes are present. As such, all routes SHOULD be treated as if ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is present and not be made more specific (de-aggregated). De-aggregation may lead to routing loops. Section 9.2.2 should remain as it is. Implications of not making the above updates: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is not implemented as documented. Current operational practices do not seem to often trigger situations that it was intended to remediate. After all, by the way it is currently documented, many of the routes in the Internet would likely have ATOMIC_AGGREGATE. The original motivation for this investigation (aside from a few years of wondering what this portion of the spec *really* meant) was making sure the MIB is correctly documented. I can do this now, even if the spec is not corrected by simply noting that the values: lessSpecificRouteNotSelected(1), lessSpecificRouteSelected(2) mean: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE not present ATOMIC_AGGREGATE present rather than documenting anything about less and more specific routes. The v2MIB can be fixed to just call it what it is since it hasn't been RFC'ed yet. Lastly, the spec would just be incorrect. But all said, nothing bad would really come of this. Yakov responded to this, saying that he thought these changes were reasonable, and unless there were objections, they would be adopted. Ishi strongly agreed with the changes. Curtis stated that: We used to add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE whenever the AS_PATH was truncated rather than replaced with an AS_SET. It was always purely informational since no one intentionally deaggregated and reannounced. And suggested that we remove the MUSTs and indicated that this is only informational. Jeff replied that: The point is that by definition of the attribute, anywhere that policy is used (and some places where it may not be), ATOMIC_AGGREGATE *should* be there. Since its not, and it would generally be everwhere, you just shouldn't de-aggregate. At best, leaving it as a method of informationally signalling truncation of a AS_PATH is the best we'll get out of it - and it matches current implementations. Jonathan agreed with Curtis' idea that we should just move ATOMIC_AGGREGATE to informational. Curtis proposed this text: This existing text is fine: f) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE (Type Code 6) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute of length 0. Usage of this attribute is described in 5.1.6. This is the existing text that we are considering changing: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Suuggested new text: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Diffs (for reader convenience): @@ -4,13 +4,19 @@ ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of - advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated - route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH - of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when - advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. + advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the + aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of + AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network + administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be + advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. + + If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in + the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of + dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the + peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE - attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when + attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE Current text in 9.1.4: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Change to: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include all AS used to form the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. This attribute is now primarily informational. With the elimination of IP routing protocols that do not support classless routing and the elimination of router and host implementations that do not support classless routing, there is no longer a need to deaggregate. Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in particular MUST NOT be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. This text in 9.2.2.2 need not change. ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route shall have this attribute as well. The appendix need not change: Appendix 1. Comparison with RFC1771 [...] Clarifications to the use of the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. This might be a bit more wordy that is necessary. It does address the objections to keeping ATOMIC_AGGREGATE by making the MUST into SHOULD, and explaining that ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is now primarily informational. Yakov was fine with this text. Yakov posted the text that represents the WG consensus: Replace: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. with: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. In 9.1.4 replace: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. with: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include all AS used to form the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. This attribute is now primarily informational. With the elimination of IP routing protocols that do not support classless routing and the elimination of router and host implementations that do not support classless routing, there is no longer a need to deaggregate. Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in particular MUST NOT be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. This met with agreement. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59) Section 4.3 - Move text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes (minimal) Summary: Update indentation to allow a new "subsection" heading. Otherwise no change. Discussion: This began with this suggestion: The text about the mimimum length, at first look, gives the impression that it is still part of the NLRI field description and/or the Path Attributes section. A new "subsection" or heading of some sort would be helpfull in switching context back to the UPDATE message as a whole and not the path attributes field anymore. Yakov agreed to update the indentation. Jonathan agreed, and suggested this text: " The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 23 octets -- 19 octets for the fixed header + 2 octets for the Withdrawn Routes Length + 2 octets for the Total Path Attribute Length (the value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." Should be moved up to just after "... the Total Path Attribute Length field and the Withdrawn Routes Length field." Yakov responded to this with: Disagree, as "... the Total Path Attribute Length field and the Withdrawn Routes Length field." explains how to calculate the length of NLRI field (and therefore is part of the NLRI field description), while "The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 23 octets...." has to do with the length of the UPDATE message. Jonathan also suggested: " the value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." Should be changed to " the min. value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the min. value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." And Yakov responded with: Disagree, as the text doesn't talk about what is the minimum value of the Withdrawn Routes Length and Total Path Attribute Length fields, but talks about the value of these fields in the case of a min length UPDATE message. After Yakov's response and a posting to the list asking that this be moved to consensus, there were no objections, so this is moved to consensus. This is discussed in the "Review: Comments: Section 4.3: UPDATE min length" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Make this change to clarify path attributes in an UPDATE: To correct the confusion I propose to replace: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. with: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE message, except for an UPDATE message that carries only the withdrawn routes. Discussion: This thread began with MikeC pointing out: The top of page 13 says: "A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE." Is this really true, given that later, in the second to last paragraph of this section (4.3): "An UPDATE message might advertise only routes to be withdrawn from service, in which case it will not include path attributes or Network Layer Reachability Information." This could be confusing to a first time reader. The path attribute length is present in every UPDATE, the path attribute field itself can be left out, both according to the description of the minimum length of the UPDATE message and (implied?) in the picture of the UPDATE message at the beginning of section 4.3. This met with one agreement. Yakov then proposed that: To correct the confusion I propose to replace: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. with: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE message, except for an UPDATE message that carries only the withdrawn routes. There was one agreement with this proposal. This is discussed in the thread: "Review: Section 4.3 - Path Attributes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: More cleary specify the behavior of NEXT_HOP modification, for the text see the end of the discussion. Discussion: Jonathan began this thread with: I propose adding: "When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer)." AFTER "When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP." There has been no discussion on this. This is discussed in the "Next hop for redistributed routes" thread. Issue 14 closed in favor of this issue. In response to Yakov's call for input, Michael responded that: Section 5.1.3 explictly states what to do when originating to an etternal peer. #2 covers one hop away, #3 covers more than on hop away. #1 talks about sending to an iBGP peer, but only when propergating a route received from an eBGP peer. 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. Text similar to #2 shoud be added, in their own bullit items to #1 such as what was suggested by Jonathan Natale (text is above.) Yakov replied with this: Replace: 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. with: 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, if the route is not locally originated the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer). And stated the change would be made if there were no objections. There have been no objections, so this is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. The textual changes are listed at the end of the discussion section of this issue. Discussion: This discussion started in issue 21: Authentication Text Update. This topic has come up before (July timeframe), but was recently refreshed in the context of issue 21. It began with some questions to the list as to who used what sort of authentication mechanisms. From the responses it was clear that MD5 (RFC2385) was the prefered method. Eric Gray's message helps to flesh this out: The question is not whether MD5 authentication is used, it is how is it implemented in real BGP implementations or - more importantly - where is the authentication information located in the packets sent between two BGP peers? This is not strictly an implementation issue because authentication information is located in different places depending on which version of MD5 authentication is in use. As is generally known, options are not necessarily good. Currently, between RFC 1771 and RFC 2385, there are two very distinct ways to accomplish a semantically identical function. If the mechanism defined in RFC 1771 is not supported by a number of interoperable implementations, it must be deprecated per RFC 2026 prior to advancing the specification to Draft Standard. If it is not implemented and actually in use, it should be deprecated if for no other reason than to make the To this Yakov responded: To be more precise, In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those options or features are removed. So, the relevant question is whether we have at least two implementations that support authentication as described in rfc1771. Folks who implemented authentication, as described in rfc1771, please speak up. There have been no responses to Yakov's question. There seems to be a consensus that, since it is little used, and since there are better mechanisms, namely MD5 authentication, we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771. Ok, after some disucssion, this is a list of the text that we are adding, changing or removing: 1) Remove the reference to the authentication optional parameter: I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet Authentication Code followed by a variable length Authentication Data. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth. Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Authentication Data | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Authentication Code: This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an authentication mechanism is specified for use within BGP, three things must be included in the specification: - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates use of the mechanism, - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be used in establishing the transport level connection. Authentication Data: Authentication Data is a variable length field that is interpreted according to the value of the Authentication Code field. 2) Update the introduction: In section 2 (Introduction), sixth paragraph From: BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. To: BGP uses TCP [RFC793] as its transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. BGP listens on TCP port 179. Any authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be used. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that TCP supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. 3) Update the message header format section: From: Marker: This 16-octet field contains a value that the receiver of the message can predict. If the Type of the message is OPEN, or if the OPEN message carries no Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the Marker must be all ones. Otherwise, the value of the marker can be predicted by some a computation specified as part of the authentication mechanism (which is specified as part of the Authentication Information) used. The Marker can be used to detect loss of synchronization between a pair of BGP peers, and to authenticate incoming BGP messages. To: Marker: This 16-octet field is included for compatibility; it must be set to all ones. 4) Update the Message Header error handling section: In section 6.1 (Message Header error handling), second paragraph From: The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones if the message type is OPEN. The expected value of the Marker field for all other types of BGP messages determined based on the presence of the Authentication Information Optional Parameter in the BGP OPEN message and the actual authentication mechanism (if the Authentication Information in the BGP OPEN message is present). If the Marker field of the message header is not the expected one, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. To: The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones. If the Marker field of the message header is not as expected, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. 5) Remove a paragraph from the OPEN mesage error handling section (section 6.2): If the OPEN message carries Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the corresponding authentication procedure is invoked. If the authentication procedure (based on Authentication Code and Authentication Data) fails, then the Error Subcode is set to Authentication Failure. 6) Update the "Differences from RFC1771 Appendix" Text not listed here 7) Fix the hole in the numbering by updating: From: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): To: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Optional parameter type 1, Authentication Information, has been deprecated. We are at consensus with these changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63) Clarify MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Modify text to clear up MED removal behavior. Text is at the end of the discussion. Discussion: This discussion began when Jonathan posted a question to the list: In reference to: "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route" Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it cannot. Juniper??? Other code??? Change to "SHOULD"??? Enke responded that: As the MED value is treated as zero when the MED attribute is missing, removing the MED attribute is really equivalent to setting the value to zero. Based on this logic, one can argue that "MED removal" is supported by multiple vendors. However, I do see that the current text can be consolidated and cleaned up: ------------------------ 5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC ... A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). ------------------------- How about this: A BGP speaker MUST implement a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the value of MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute of a received route to be altered. This shall be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). -------------------------- In responding to a question, Enke also added: > Humm. I thought with a missing MED it was prefereable to be treated as > worst not as 0. It was changed a long time ago. Please see the following text in Sect. 9.1.2.2 of the draft: In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. Curtis replied to Enke: If Juniper treats missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC as worst and Cisco has a knob to treat missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC as worst, then IMHO we should change the spec to say that MED(n) returns the largest value possible is MULTI_EXIT_DISC is missing since this has better loop suppression bahaviour if the placement of MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal is moved in its position in the flow from Adj-In-RIB to Loc-RIB to Adj-Rib-Out. In other words, no matter where the removal takes place, we are loop free without special rules about comparing EBGP before MED removal and then IBGP after MED removal. The only argument for MED(n) going to zero for missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC was that Cisco routers did that (and change would pose an operational issue if there wasn't a knob to facilitate the change). Note that when explicitly jamming a MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, such as zero, the issue of where in the decision process the MULTI_EXIT_DISC learned from the EBGP peers could still be used becomes a concern again. Unfortunately these implementation hints are necessary to remain loop free and so its hard to declare them out of scope, unless we forbid changing MULTI_EXIT_DISC and just allow it to be removed (which does not reflect current practice). Curtis also added: The other issue was MED handling. In "5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC": A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). This doesn't sufficiently address the issue. The MED step in the decision process is (in 9.1.2.2): c) Remove from consideration routes with less-preferred MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes. MULTI_EXIT_DISC is only comparable between routes learned from the same neighboring AS. Routes which do not have the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute are considered to have the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value. This is also described in the following procedure: for m = all routes still under consideration for n = all routes still under consideration if (neighborAS(m) == neighborAS(n)) and (MED(n) < MED(m)) remove route m from consideration In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. The problem is that a route loop can be formed. To avoid the route loop, two suggestions were made (2-3 years ago and nothing was done). One was to make MED(n) return infinity if there was no MULTI_EXIT_DISC. The other was to consider MULTI_EXIT_DISC in the decision process only for the purpose of selecting among the EBGP peers, then remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC, then use that best route in comparisons to IBGP learned routes. The statement in 5.1.4 "This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2)" does not sufficiently address this. This implies that you MAY also remove after route selection, in which case field experience indicates you WILL get burned (unless you know about the caveat above). Initially this came up as an interoperability issue but later it was proven (in the field) that a Cisco and another Cisco could form a route loop until Cisco made this change. Additional wording is needed either in 5.1.4 or in 9.1.2.2. I suggest we put a forward reference in 5.1.4: [...]. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. Then in 9.1.2.2 add a clarificatio to the neighborAS(n) function and add to the existing text. Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route, not the internal AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. The loop is the classic I prefer your and you prefer mine problem. It occurs when the router is configured to remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertise out a route so other routers can use IGP cost to select the best route. If two routers do this, as soon as they hear the route with no MULTI_EXIT_DISC from the other peer they start forwarding toward that peer but they continue to advertise to it since others IBPG peers are expected to select among the MULTI_EXIT_DISC free IBGP learned routes using the next step in the decision process, IGP cost. In this case, what you want is each router to prefer its own EBGP route, even though it has a MULTI_EXIT_DISC and the IBGP learned route from the same neighbor AS has had its MULTI_EXIT_DISC stripped off (or didn't have one, you can't tell which it is). You then want all of the IBGP peers with a MULTI_EXIT_DISC free route from that AS, or that have stripped the MULTI_EXIT_DISC to form one, to advertise them. Others in the AS will then use IGP cost to further resolve which exit point to use. It make a difference when the route is the aggregate route of another major provider. IGP cost yields what ISPs call "hot potatoe routing" and MED selects among multiple heavily loaded provider interconnects. [Aside: Having a missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC default to infinity would do exactly what the ISPs want it to do in the first place and be a lot easier to explain but we didn't fix that 2-3 years ago when the issue came up even though we had WG consensus that it was the right thing to do. The authors didn't act on it at the time (because Cisco didn't do it that way and the authors preferred to sit on the draft). At this point we might as well adequately document what we ended up with.... End of soapbox. I don't take myself all that seriously so others shouldn't either. :-)] After some more discussion on this, we have this text: In 5.1.4 replace: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). with: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. In 9.1.2.2 replace: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. with: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker didn't originate the route, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route. If the route is learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker originated the route, it is the local AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, then removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. There have been no objections to this, so we are at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64) MED for Originated Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that there is not need to specify default values for MED in the base draft. Discussion: This issue began when it was pointed out that we do not specify the default values for MED in the base draft. There were a variety of responses, but the consensus is that since this is not relevant for interoperability, this does not need to be in the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Clear up the text on aggregating with a MED. See the discussion for the text. Discussion: There is a proposal to relax this statement: "Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP." In his reply to the original mail, Curtis asserted that we should leave the MED rules alone, but perhaps we could relax the NEXT_HOP statement. This was revisited in the "aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP" thread. Yakov suggested we replace: Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP. If the aggregation occurs as part of the update process, routes with different NEXT_HOP values can be aggregated when announced through an external BGP session. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, according to the following rules: with: Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, according to the following rules: NEXT_HOP: When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route SHALL identify an interface on the router that performs the aggregation. This met with agreement. Dimitry asked if the "Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DESC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated." sentance was unnecessary since it should be a matter of local policy. Jeff replied that it has been mentioned that removing this stipulation can cause routing loops. We are at consensus with this issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Since we have two implementations of this method, secion 6.8 stays in the specification. Discussion: Jonathan opened this discussion with: The part in the draft about complex AS path aggregation could/should be deleted. The current draft implies that when aggregating, for example (1st): 1 2 4 3 w/ 3 4 6 5 and 5 6 7 8 then 1 2 {3 4 5 6} 7 8 ...would be OK AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: (2nd)putting ONLY the local AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating 1 giant set and adding the local AS as a seq. So he proposed we remove this to reflect current code. Jeff replied that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing complex aggregation, and there is no reason to remove this from the specification. Yakov responded that: Jonathan is certainly correct that the spec has to reflect current code. Therefore, unless there are at least two (interoperable) implementations that implement the algorithm described in "6.8 Complex AS_PATH aggregation", this section has to be removed (this is irrespective of whether there is something wrong, or nothing wrong with complex aggregation). With this in mind, if you implement this algorithm please speak up within a week. If within a week we wouldn't know that there are at least two implementations the section will be removed. And likewise, if we hear that there are at least two implementations, the section will stay. Jeff replied: I am also fine with removing it. I just don't think its necessary, especially if One Of These Days someone decides that running policy based on as-adjacencies would be a Nice Thing and fixes their implementation to support "complex" aggregation of paths. That said, I am aware of no one who implements this. As an aside, in the thread "last thought on complex aggregation" Jeff supplied: I finally remembered what was bothering me about removing complex aggregation from the spec. If it is removed, people who do conformance tests and some implementations may take this to mean "it shall be illegal to have an AS_PATH that contains a SEQUENCE of a particular type after a SET". This would make a perfectly ok AS_PATH into one that isn't legal, even if no implementation currently generates it. Jonathan replied that he thought the issue was moot since no one has implemented this. John replied that, although he is a bit uncomfortable in removing this from the spec, he doesn't see any harm in doing so. With this in mind, Yakov suggested we consider the issue closed. So we will wait a week from 10/17 to see if anyone chimes in. Siva responded that they have implemented this functionality. So we need one more...Ben responded that they support this at Marconi as well. So we have two implementations, the section stays in the spec. We are at consensus with this issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Move how AS_CONFED_SET & SEQUENCE affect route selection to the BGP Confederations document. Update the base draft to reflect this by changing section 9.1.2.2. Specific text is at the end of the discussion. Discussion: Jonathan brought up some questions on how current implementations count AS_SET and AS_CONFED_* There were a variety of resposnes to this, answering his questions. Curtis pointed out that this behavior is covered in: That's in 9.1.2.2: a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. Jonathan replied that this might be at odds with what Juniper does, although he was unsure, and asked for clarification. This was discussed in the "New Issue AS path" thread. Yakov proposed that: The issue of route selection in the present of confederations belongs *not* to the base spec, but to the spec that describes BGP Confeds. With this in mind I would suggest to change in 9.1.2.2 from a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. to a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set. and ask the authors of BGP Confeds to update their document to cover how the presence of confeds impact route selection. This met with agreement, this issue is at conensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68) Outbound Loop Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is, that while this may be a useful technique, it would break existing methods, and is otherwise out-of-scope for the base draft. It was suggested that this could be addressed in the update to RFC1772. Discussion: Jonathan brought up that: This paper (thanks Jeff) http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2000-08 indicates that it is better to do the loop detection outbound as well inbound. The current draft indicates that it only needs to be done inbound. IOS does it inbound as well as outbound. GateD/Juniper does it (did it ???) only inbound. So I propose we add: "An implementation MAY choose to not advertise routes to EBGP peers if these routes contain the AS of that peer in the AS path." after: "If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be stored in the Adj-RIB In, but unless the router is configured to accept routes with its own AS in the AS path, the route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." *If there is at least one other implementation that does outbound pruning/loop-detection.* Yakov pointed out that this is ONLY applicable to the base draft if there are multiple implementations doing this. This issue will only be considered if these implementors come forward by 10/25/02. Otherwise the issue will be considered closed. Jeff replied that there was more at stake with this than if people had implemented it: My suggestion is that this can stay out of the base draft. While it is true that this speeds up convergence (per the paper), it doesn't affect interoperability. Also, adding this specifically removes the ability from several implementations to be able to bridge a partitioned AS by permitting loops. (I'm not going to argue whether this is a Good way to do this, just that its done.) Its also worth noting that one could produce the same resultant speed-up by detecting the loop on an outbound basis and *not* applying the min*timers to the UPDATE. Thus, this would be a case of an advertisement of NLRI being treated the same, timer-wise, as the advertisement of WD_NLRI. I would suggest moving this suggestion for outbound loop detection in one form or another to the 1772 replacement. Yakov agreed with this. ============================================================================ Appendix A - Other Documents ============================================================================ Over the course of this discussion, a number of issues have been raised that the group though would be better dealt with in other documents. These additional documents, and their concomitant issues will be more fully addressed when the WG turns its focus to them. These projects are: 1) Update RFC 1772: Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet. This will probably entail a complete rewrite. 2) Update Route Reflector (2796) and Confederation (3065) RFC's regarding their impact on route selection. 3) Write a new document covering BGP Multipath. --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Changelog.txt" CHANGELOG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.4 to v1.5 2002-10-28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 32) Clarify EGP Reference 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 68) Outbound Loop Detection Moved to Consensus: 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 32) Clarify EGP Reference 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 68) Outbound Loop Detection Minor Editorial Fixes: 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 34) Timer & Counter Definition 42) Delete the FSM Section 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.3 to v1.4 2002-10-22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: Appendix A - Other Documents 68) Outbound Loop Detection Updated: 8) Jitter Text 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* Moved to Consensus: 8) Jitter Text 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.2 to v1.3 2002-10-16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 64) MED for Originated Routes 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* List of issues that are NOT at consensus Updated: 8) Jitter Text 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 12) TCP Behavior Wording 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 34) Timer & Counter Definition 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 Moved FROM Consensus: 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 Moved to Consensus: 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 34) Timer & Counter Definition 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.2 to v1.2.1 2002-10-01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 63) Clarify MED Removal Text TOC) Added issues 62 and 63 to the table of contents. Moved to Consensus: 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.1.1 to v1.2 2002-10-01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text Updated: 1) IDR WG Charter 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasable Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text Moved to Consensus: 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer (closed in favor of issue 61) 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 59) Section 4.3 - Move text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.1 to v1.1.1 2002-09-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 5) Direct EBGP Peers Added the "consensus" line in the actual issue description. TOC) Added issue 61 to the table-of-contents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.0 to v1.1 2002-09-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes Updated: 5) Direct EBGP Peers 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section Moved to Consensus: 5) Direct EBGP Peers 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Sectioules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11923 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BE22091242; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:34:03 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8DD8491243; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:34:03 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7599E91242 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:34:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 513FE5DE11; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:34:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (sentry.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.100]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD0D5DE0C for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:34:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id LAA18607; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:34:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from raven.gw.tislabs.com(10.33.1.50) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5) id xma018593; Mon, 28 Oct 02 11:33:17 -0500 Received: (from sandy@localhost) by raven.gw.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9SGXFC13728; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:33:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:33:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200210281633.g9SGXFC13728@raven.gw.tislabs.com> From: sandy@tislabs.com To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-01.txt (was Re: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-02.txt) Cc: sandy@tislabs.com Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk About the version numbers.... The internet-draft people contacted me to say that a resubmission of an expired draft gets the next number after the expired draft, not the next number after the notice of the expired draft. So instead of being published as a -02, this will be published as a -01. They asked me to send them a revised version, which I did. I can see this will cause confusion when (if) we get to a -02 version again and people look in the archive. But I exist only to obey the will of the secretariat. --Sandy Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11486 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 02BCD91241; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:59 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C071091242; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:58 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46E591241 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9B8725DE1C; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:57 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (sentry.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.100]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266BB5DE11 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id LAA18371; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from raven.gw.tislabs.com(10.33.1.50) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5) id xma018357; Mon, 28 Oct 02 11:24:51 -0500 Received: (from sandy@localhost) by raven.gw.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9SGOnM13291; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:24:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200210281624.g9SGOnM13291@raven.gw.tislabs.com> From: sandy@tislabs.com To: dbarak@UU.NET Subject: Re: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-02.txt Cc: idr@merit.edu, sandy@tislabs.com Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk >I have one issue with the current draft: Gee, only ONE!!!! I declare success. :-) >I recommend replacing what is below with what follows it: This was a resubmission of the old version of the draft, which is almost certainly seriously out of date, given the number of changes under consideration for the -18 version of the base spec. But (a) the -18 version has not been published (and I pale at the prospect of trying to piece it together from the various discussions that have reached consensus) and (b) the intent was to get the document out real fast. So there are bound to be lots of wording changes, based on the changes in the base spec. --Sandy Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA09811 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:54:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AB73B9123F; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:54:23 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7B49591240; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:54:23 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302C59123F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:54:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1C9F65DDF5; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:54:22 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from cmr2.ash.ops.us.uu.net (cmr2.ash.ops.us.uu.net [198.5.241.40]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCC05DDCC for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from cmr2.ash.ops.us.uu.net by cmr2.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: localhost [127.0.0.1]) id QQnmnv07283 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:54:21 GMT Received: from csserve0.corp.us.uu.net by cmr2.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: csserve0.corp.us.uu.net [153.39.88.140]) id QQnmnv07275; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:54:20 GMT Received: from localhost by csserve0.corp.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: dbarak@localhost) id QQnmnv01090; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:54:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:54:20 -0500 (EST) From: David Barak <dbarak@UU.NET> X-Sender: dbarak@csserve0.corp.us.uu.net To: sandy@tislabs.com Cc: internet-drafts@ietf.org, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-02.txt In-Reply-To: <200210251859.g9PIx1j20343@raven.gw.tislabs.com> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0210281049430.26110-100000@csserve0.corp.us.uu.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I have one issue with the current draft: I recommend replacing what is below with what follows it: >ORIGIN >This field indicates whether the information was learned from IGP or EGP >information. If the route is used in inter-AS multicast routing, a >value of INCOMPLETE may be used. This field is not used in making >routing decisions, so there are no vulnerabilities arising from this >field, either from BGP peers or outsiders. ORIGIN This field indicates whether the information was learned via the EGP Protocol [6], by manual insertion into the BGP table, or learned by some other means. This field is used in routing decisions, although not widely. This field is subject to manipulation, but the net effect of said manipulation would be subtle. [6] RFC 904, EGP is now depricated. David Barak WorldCom Voice: +1-703-886-5500 Fax: +1-703-886-0541 "Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?" - Juvenal ===== Fully RFC 1925 compliant ===== Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA03587 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9E3199131A; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3093491325; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C438B9131A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AFCF95DF69; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (unknown [192.94.214.100]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3315DF60 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id RAA18083; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from raven.gw.tislabs.com(10.33.1.50) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5) id xma018072; Fri, 25 Oct 02 21:38:22 GMT Received: (from sandy@localhost) by raven.gw.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9PLcLJ26557; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:38:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:38:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200210252138.g9PLcLJ26557@raven.gw.tislabs.com> From: sandy@tislabs.com To: saq66@umkc.edu Subject: RE: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-02.txt Cc: idr@merit.edu, sandy@tislabs.com Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > I thought this will become a rpsec submission.. No. See the minutes from the last IETF idr meeting. David Ward sent the minutes to the list on July 18. (Archived at http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/idr/2002-07/msg00140.html) > 10. Murphy's vulnerability draft to be IDR WG item > > 11. Murphy's protection mechanisms to be RPSec WG item --Sandy P.S. Neither the vulnerabilities draft nor the protections draft could become an rpsec submission, by how I understand the rpsec work. See the rpsec charter at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rpsec-charter.html: "It is also a non-goal at this point to produce new or change the current security mechanisms in the existing routing protocols." What Alex had said (if I remember correctly) was that the protections draft would have to wait until the rpsec group established the security requirements. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24806 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CBE1A91319; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5C3979131A; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589CC91319 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 401975DDB0; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (unknown [192.94.214.100]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989A95DF4F for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:59:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id OAA14533; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:59:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from raven.gw.tislabs.com(10.33.1.50) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5) id xma014523; Fri, 25 Oct 02 18:59:02 GMT Received: (from sandy@localhost) by raven.gw.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9PIx1j20343; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200210251859.g9PIx1j20343@raven.gw.tislabs.com> From: sandy@tislabs.com To: internet-drafts@ietf.org Subject: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-02.txt Cc: idr@merit.edu, sandy@tislabs.com Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Network Working Group Sandra Murphy INTERNET DRAFT NAI Labs draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-02.txt October 2002 BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Abstract BGP, along with a host of other infrastructure protocols designed before the Internet environment became perilous, is designed with little consideration for protection of the information it carries. There are no mechanisms in BGP to protect against attacks that modify, delete, forge, or replay data, any of which has the potential to disrupt overall network routing behavior. This internet draft discusses some of the security issues with BGP routing data dissemination. A companion work, [5], discusses possible security solutions and the costs of those solutions. This internet draft does not discuss security issues with forwarding of packets. Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 Table of Contents Status of this Memo .............................................. 1 Abstract ......................................................... 1 1 Introduction .................................................... 3 2 Vulnerabilities and Risks ....................................... 5 2.1 OPEN .......................................................... 5 2.2 KEEPALIVE ..................................................... 6 2.3 NOTIFICATION .................................................. 6 2.4 UPDATE ........................................................ 6 2.4.1 Unfeasible Routes Length, Total Path Attribute Length ....... 6 2.4.2 Withdrawn Routes ............................................ 6 2.4.3 Path Attributes ............................................. 7 Attribute Flags, Attribute Type Codes, Attribute Length .......... 7 ORIGIN ........................................................... 7 AS_PATH .......................................................... 7 Originating Routes ............................................... 8 NEXT_HOP ......................................................... 9 MULTI_EXIT_DISC .................................................. 9 LOCAL_PREF ....................................................... 9 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ................................................. 9 AGGREGATOR ....................................................... 10 2.4.4 NLRI ........................................................ 10 2.5 BGP Extensions ................................................ 10 2.5.1 Communities ................................................. 10 2.5.2 Confederations .............................................. 11 3 Security Considerations ......................................... 11 4 References ...................................................... 11 5 Author's Address ................................................ 12 Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 1. Introduction The inter-domain routing protocol BGP was created when the Internet environment had not yet reached the present contentious state. Consequently, the BGP protocol was not designed with protection against deliberate or accidental errors causing disruptions of routing behavior. We here discuss the vulnerabilities of BGP, based on the BGP RFC [1] and on [2]. Readers are expected to be familiar with the BGP RFC and the behavior of BGP. A companion work, [5], proposes several different security solutions to protect these vulnerabilities and discuss the benefits derived from each solution and its cost. It is clear that the Internet is vulnerable to attack through its routing protocols and BGP is no exception. Faulty, misconfigured or deliberately malicious sources can disrupt overall Internet behavior by injecting bogus routing information into the BGP distributed routing database (by modifying, forging, or replaying BGP packets). The same methods can also be used to disrupt local and overall network behavior by breaking the distributed communication of information between BGP peers. The sources of bogus information can be either outsiders or true BGP peers. Under the present BGP design, cryptographic authentication of the peer- peer communication is not mandated. As a TCP/IP protocol, BGP is subject to all the TCP/IP attacks, like IP spoofing, session stealing, etc. Any outsider can inject believable BGP messages into the communication between BGP peers and thereby inject bogus routing information or break the peer to peer connection. Any break in the peer to peer communication has a ripple effect on routing that can be wide spread. Furthermore, outsider sources can also disrupt communications between BGP peers by breaking their TCP connection with spoofed RST packets. Outsider sources of bogus BGP information can reside anywhere in the world. BGP speakers themselves can inject bogus routing information, either by masquerading as information from any other legitimate BGP speaker, or by distributing unauthentic routing information as themselves. Historically, misconfigured and faulty routers have been responsible for widespread disruptions in the Internet. Bogus routing information can have many different effects on routing behavior. If the bogus information removes routing information for a particular network, that network can become unreachable for the portion of the Internet that accepts the bogus information. If the bogus Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 information changes the route to a network, then packets destined for that network may be forwarded by a sub-optimal path, or a path that does not follow the expected policy, or a path that will not forward the traffic. As a consequence, traffic to that network could be delayed by a longer than necessary path. The network could become unreachable from areas where the bogus information is accepted. Traffic might also be forwarded along a path that permits some adversary a view of the data. If the bogus information makes it appear that an autonomous system originates a network when it does not, then packets for that network may not be deliverable for the portion of the Internet that accepts the bogus information. A false announcement that an autonomous systems originates a network may also fragment aggregated address blocks in other parts of the Internet and cause routing problems for other networks. The damage that might result from these attacks are: starvation: data traffic destined for a node is forwarded to a part of the network that cannot deliver it, network congestion: more data traffic is forwarded through some portion of the network than would otherwise need to carry the traffic, blackhole: large amounts of traffic are directed to be forwarded through one router that cannot handle the increased level of traffic and drops many/most/all packets, delay: data traffic destined for a node is forwarded along a path that is in some way inferior to the path it would otherwise take, looping: data traffic is forwarded along a path that loops, so that the data is never delivered, eavesdrop: data traffic is forwarded through some router or network that would otherwise not see the traffic, affording an opportunity to see the data, partition: some portion of the network believes that it is partitioned from the rest of the network when it is not, cut: some portion of the network believes that it has no route to some network that is in fact connected, Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 churn: the forwarding in the network changes at a rapid pace, resulting in large variations in the data delivery patterns (and adversely affecting congestion control techniques), instability: BGP become unstable so that convergence on a global forwarding state is not achieved, and overload: the BGP messages themselves become a significant portion of the traffic the network carries. 2. Vulnerabilities and Risks The risks in BGP arise from three fundamental vulnerabilities: no mechanism has been mandated that provides strong protection of the integrity, freshness and source authenticity of the messages in peer-peer BGP communications. no mechanism has been specified to validate the authority of an AS to announce NLRI information. no mechanism has been specified to ensure the authenticity of the AS_PATH announced by an AS. There are four different BGP message types - OPEN, KEEPALIVE, NOTIFICATION, and UPDATE. This section contains a discussion of the vulnerabilities arising from each message and the ability of outsiders or BGP peers to exploit the vulnerabilities. To summarize, outsiders can use bogus OPEN, KEEPALIVE, or NOTIFICATION messages to disrupt the BGP peer-peer connections and can use bogus UPDATE messages to disrupt routing. Outsiders can also disrupt BGP peer-peer connections by inserting bogus TCP RST packets. BGP peers themselves are permitted to break peer-peer connections at any time, and so they cannot be said to be issuing "bogus" OPEN, KEEPALIVE or NOTIFICATION messages. However, BGP peers can disrupt routing by issuing bogus UPDATE messages. In particular, bogus ATOMIC_AGGREGATE and AS_PATH attributes and bogus NLRI in UPDATE messages can disrupt routing. Each message introduces certain different vulnerabilities and risks. 2.1. OPEN Because receipt of a new OPEN message in the Established state will cause the close of the BGP peering session and thereby induce the release of all resources and deletion of all associated routes, the Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 ability to spoof this message can lead to a severe disruption of routing. 2.2. KEEPALIVE Receipt of a KEEPALIVE message when the peering connection is in the OpenSent state can lead to a failure to establish a connection. The ability to spoof this message is a vulnerability. To exploit this vulnerability deliberately, the KEEPALIVE must be carefully timed in the sequence of messages exchanged between the peers; otherwise, it causes no damage. 2.3. NOTIFICATION Receipt of a NOTIFICATION message will cause the close of the BGP peering session and thereby induce the release of all resources and deletion of all associated routes. Therefore, the ability to spoof this message can lead to a severe disruption of routing. 2.4. UPDATE The Update message carries the routing information. The ability to spoof any part of this message can lead to a disruption of routing. 2.4.1. Unfeasible Routes Length, Total Path Attribute Length There is a vulnerability arising from the ability to modify these fields. If a length is modified, the message is not likely to parse properly, resulting in an error, the transmission of a NOTIFICATION message and the close of the connection. As a true BGP speaker is always able to close a connection at any time, this vulnerability represents an additional risk only when the source is a non-BGP speaker, i.e., it presents no additional risk from BGP sources. 2.4.2. Withdrawn Routes An outsider could cause the elimination of existing legitimate routes by forging or modifying this field. An outsider could also cause the elimination of reestablished routes by replaying this withdrawal information from earlier packets. A BGP speaker could "falsely" withdraw feasible routes using this field. However, as the BGP speaker is authoritative for the routes it will announce, it is allowed to withdraw any previously announced routes that it wants. As the receiving BGP speaker will only withdraw routes Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 associated with the sending BGP speaker, there is no opportunity for a BGP speaker to withdraw another BGP speaker's routes. Therefore, there is no additional risk from BGP peers via this field. 2.4.3. Path Attributes The path attributes present many different vulnerabilities and risks. Attribute Flags, Attribute Type Codes, Attribute Length A BGP peer or an outsider could modify the attribute length or attribute type (flags and type codes) so they did not reflect the attribute values that followed. If the flags were modified, the flags and type code could become incompatible (i.e., a mandatory attribute marked as partial), or a optional attribute could be interpreted as a mandatory attribute or vice versa. If the type code were modified, the attribute value could be interpreted as if it were the data type and value of a different attribute. The most likely result from modifying the attribute length, flags, or type code would be a parse error of the UPDATE message. A parse error would cause the transmission of a NOTIFICATION message and the close of the connection. As a true BGP speaker is always able to close a connection at any time, this vulnerability represents an additional risk only when the source is an outsider, i.e., it presents no additional risk from a BGP peer. ORIGIN This field indicates whether the information was learned from IGP or EGP information. If the route is used in inter-AS multicast routing, a value of INCOMPLETE may be used. This field is not used in making routing decisions, so there are no vulnerabilities arising from this field, either from BGP peers or outsiders. AS_PATH A BGP peer or outsider could announce an AS_PATH that was not accurate for the associated NLRI. Forwarding for the NLRI associated with the AS_PATH could potentially be induced to follow a sub-optimal path, a path that did not follow some intended policy, or even a path that would not forward the traffic. If the path would not forward the traffic, the NLRI would become unreachable for that portion of the Internet that accepted the false path. If much traffic is mis-directed, some routers and transit networks along the announced route could become flooded with Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 the mis-directed traffic. It is not clear how far an inaccurate AS_PATH could deviate from the true AS_PATH. It may be that the first AS in the AS_PATH, at least, must be a legal hop. The RFC states that a BGP speaker prepends its own AS to an AS_PATH before announcing it to a neighbor. If the BGP speaker must prepend its own AS, then a BGP speaker that produced a bogus AS_PATH could end up receiving the traffic for the associated NLRI. This could be desirable if the error was deliberate and the intent was to receive traffic that would not otherwise be received. Receiving the mis-routed traffic could be undesirable for the faulty BGP speaker if it were not prepared to handle the extra (mis-routed) traffic. So, requiring a BGP peer to prepend its own AS to the AS_PATH, might encourage or discourage it from inventing an arbitrary AS_PATH, depending on its resources and intent. If BGP peers need not prepend its own AS (or implementations do not ensure that this is done), then a malicious BGP peer could announce a path that begins with the AS of any BGP speaker with little impact on itself. Whether such an arbitrary AS_PATH is a vulnerability would depend on whether BGP implementations check the AS_PATH (to see if the first AS is the neighbor) and would catch the error. If there are legitimate situations in which a BGP speaker could pass an AS_PATH to a neighbor without putting its own AS at the head of the AS_PATH, then there is no way for implementations to detect totally bogus AS_PATHs. Originating Routes A special case of announcing a false AS_PATH occurs when the AS_PATH advertises a direct connection to a specific network address. An BGP peer or outsider could disrupt routing to the network(s) listed in the NLRI field by falsely advertising a direct connection to the network. The NLRI would become unreachable to the portion of the network that accepted this false route, unless the ultimate AS on the AS_PATH undertook to tunnel the packets it was forwarded for this NLRI on toward their true destination AS by a valid path. But even when the packets are tunneled to the correct destination AS, the route followed may not be optimal or may not follow the intended policy. Additionally, routing for other networks in the Internet could be affected if the false advertisement fragmented an aggregated address block, forcing the routers to handle (issue UPDATES, store, manage) the multiple fragments rather than the single aggregate. False originations for multiple addresses can result in routers and transit networks along the announced Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 route to become flooded with mis-directed traffic. NEXT_HOP The NEXT_HOP attribute defines the IP address of the border router that should be used as the next hop when forwarding the NLRI listed in the UPDATE message. If the recipient is an external peer, then the recipient and the NEXT_HOP address must share a subnet. It is clear that an outsider modifying this field could disrupt the forwarding of traffic between the two AS's. In the case that the recipient of the message is an external peer of an AS and the route was learned from another peer AS (this is one of two forms of "third party" NEXT_HOP), then the BGP speaker advertising the route has the opportunity to direct the recipient to forward traffic to a BGP speaker at the NEXT_HOP address. This affords the opportunity to direct traffic at a router that may not be able to continue forwarding the traffic. It is unclear whether this would also require the advertising BGP speaker to construct an AS_PATH mentioning the NEXT_HOP external peer's AS. MULTI_EXIT_DISC The MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is used in UPDATE messages transmitted between inter-AS BGP peers. While the MULTI_EXIT_DISC received from an inter-AS peer may be propagated within an AS, it may not be propagated to other AS's. Consequently, this field is only used in making routing decisions internal to one AS. Modifying this field, whether by an outsider or an BGP peer, could influence routing within an AS to be sub- optimal, but the effect should be limited in scope. LOCAL_PREF The LOCAL_PREF attribute must be included in all messages with internal peers and excluded from messages with external peers. Consequently, modification of the LOCAL_PREF could effect the routing process within the AS only. Note that there is no requirement in the BGP RFC that the LOCAL_PREF be consistent among the internal BGP speakers of an AS. As BGP peers are free to choose the LOCAL_PREF as they wish, modification of this field is a vulnerability with respect to outsiders only. ATOMIC_AGGREGATE The ATOMIC_AGGREGATE field indicates that an AS somewhere along the way has received a more specific and a less specific route to the NLRI and Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 installed the aggregated route. This route cannot be de-aggregated because it is not certain that the route to more specific prefixes will follow the listed AS_PATH. Consequently, BGP speakers receiving a route with ATOMIC_AGGREGATE are restricted from making the NLRI any more specific. Removing the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute would remove the restriction, possibly causing traffic intended for the more specific NLRI to be routed incorrectly. Adding the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute when no aggregation was done would have little effect, beyond restricting the un-aggregated NLRI from being made more specific. This vulnerability exists whether the source is a BGP peer or an outsider. AGGREGATOR This field may be included by a BGP speaker who has computed the routes represented in the UPDATE message from aggregation of other routes. The field contains the AS number and IP address of the last aggregator of the route. It is not used in making any routing decisions, so it does not represent a vulnerability. 2.4.4. NLRI By modifying or forging this field, either an outsider or BGP peer source could cause disruption of routing to the announced network, overwhelm a router along the announced route, cause data loss when the announced route will not forward traffic to the announced network, route traffic by a sub-optimal route, etc. 2.5. BGP Extensions Several standards track extensions have been defined for BGP, e.g., [3], [4]. Some have present additional vulnerabilities. 2.5.1. Communities An optional transitive path attribute called COMMUNITIES, [3], provides for more flexible and scalable configuration of routing policies and for control of configuration by the service provider customer. Routing UPDATEs may now include a communities attribute that is used by the receiver in deciding to accept, prefer, or distribute the UPDATE route. An outsider could forge values in this field to affect the routing behavior of the receiver. In particular, the defined values for this attribute of NO_EXPORT, NO_ADVERTISE, and NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED offer the opportunity to affect the distribution of those routes. Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 Depending on the use the receiver makes of the communities attribute, a BGP peer who had knowledge of the routing decision process of the receiver could misuse communities to which it was not authorized to its own benefit or to the harm of others. 2.5.2. Confederations New types for AS_PATH segments called AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE and AS_CONFED_SET, [4], offer an alternative to ful mesh IBGP sessions. A confederation is a collection of autonomous systems advertised to BGP speaker outside the confederation as a single AS but within the confederation as if they were distinct AS's. An outsider who was able to forge this segment type could affect routing within the confederation and consequently routing with peers as well. The specification [4] makes no distinction between the values for Member-AS numbers used within a confederation and AS numbers used outside a confederation. The possibility exists for a BGP speaker to include a segment type of AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET and use the same Member-AS value as used in its peer's own confederation. This presents an opportunity to considerably affect routing between the two confederations and inside the peer's confederation. 3. Security Considerations This entire memo is about security, describing an analysis of the vulnerabilities that exist in the BGP protocol. A companion work, [5], describes possible security solutions and their costs. 4. References [1] Y. Rekhter and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC1771, March 1995. [2] Y. Rekhter and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", work in progress, November 2001. available as <<draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt>> at Internet-Draft shadow sites. [3] R. Chandra, P. Traina, and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute", RFC1997, August 1996. [4] P. Traina, D. McPherson, and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC3065, February 2001. Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis October 2002 [5] S. Murphy, "BGP Security Protections", work in progress, October, 2002. available as <<draft-murphy-bgp-protect-02.txt>> at Internet-Draft shadow sites. 5. Author's Address Sandra Murphy Network Associates, Inc. NAI Labs 3060 Washington Road Glenwood, MD 21738 EMail: Sandy@tislabs.com Murphy Expires: April 2003 [Page 12] Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24630 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 31B7291312; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E0C1F91314; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E804091312 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D12CC5DF55; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (unknown [192.94.214.100]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6B25DF6C for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id OAA14461; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:57:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from raven.gw.tislabs.com(10.33.1.50) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5) id xma014446; Fri, 25 Oct 02 18:56:59 GMT Received: (from sandy@localhost) by raven.gw.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9PIuwi20222; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200210251856.g9PIuwi20222@raven.gw.tislabs.com> From: sandy@tislabs.com To: idr@merit.edu Subject: security drafts Cc: sandy@tislabs.com Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Since the vulnerability draft has expired from the internet-draft sites, as noted, Yakov asked that I resubmit the draft, post-haste. I'll send the draft to the internet-drafts address and cc the idr list, so you should see draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-02.txt momentarily. If you get the internet draft announcements, you might also see an announcement of draft-murphy-bgp-protect-02.txt. That's the dual to the vulnerabilities draft and is the remaining half of what used to be the "BGP Security Analysis" draft. The vulnerabilities draft refers to the protections draft, so I needed to resubmit both. But only the vulnerabilities draft draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-02.txt is under consideration as an idr working group draft. --Sandy Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19365 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:21:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7B7289130E; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 497879130F; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61729130E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:19:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CEE0B5DF20; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:19:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from emerson.torrentnet.com (emerson.torrentnet.com [198.78.51.110]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AC15DDB0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:19:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imperial.torrentnet.com (imperial.torrentnet.com [198.78.51.109]) by emerson.torrentnet.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g9PHJ2C91878; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coors.torrentnet.com (coors.torrentnet.com [4.21.152.11]) by imperial.torrentnet.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g9PHJ2175190; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kaarthik@localhost) by coors.torrentnet.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g9PHJ2k06295; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:19:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: coors.torrentnet.com: kaarthik set sender to kaarthik@torrentnet.com using -f To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt as a WG item References: <200210251651.g9PGpYm08835@merlot.juniper.net> From: Kaarthik Sivakumar <kaarthik@torrentnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200210251651.g9PGpYm08835@merlot.juniper.net> Date: 25 Oct 2002 13:19:02 -0400 Message-ID: <1i8z0mqvw9.fsf@coors.torrentnet.com> Lines: 33 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk >>> "YR" == Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> writes: YR> Folks, YR> minor correction - it should be draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-01.txt YR> in the attached. This draft doesnt exist in the IETF directory. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-01.txt says that this draft has expired and is not available. Can the author resend it? Thanks. Kaarthik YR> Sorry for the confusion. YR> Yakov. YR> From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> YR> Subject: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt as a WG item YR> To: idr@merit.edu YR> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:46:14 -0700 YR> Folks, YR> If there are any objections to accepting draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt YR> as a WG document, please send them to the list within the next YR> week. In the absence of objections by 11/1 draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt YR> will be accepted as an IDR WG document. YR> Yakov. YR> ---------- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17732 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AA8389130C; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 75A7B9130D; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C2C9130C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 416EC5DF33; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75D55DE5F for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:51:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9PGpYm08835 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:51:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210251651.g9PGpYm08835@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt as a WG item MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <50159.1035564694.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:51:34 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, minor correction - it should be draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-01.txt in the attached. Sorry for the confusion. Yakov. ------- Forwarded Message Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:46:14 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt as a WG item Folks, If there are any objections to accepting draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt as a WG document, please send them to the list within the next week. In the absence of objections by 11/1 draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt will be accepted as an IDR WG document. Yakov. ------- End of Forwarded Message Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17473 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CFEFC9130B; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:46:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DF7489130C; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:46:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F4C9130B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 61C095DF33; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38105DDB0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9PGkEm08498 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:46:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210251646.g9PGkEm08498@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt as a WG item MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <47766.1035564374.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:46:14 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, If there are any objections to accepting draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt as a WG document, please send them to the list within the next week. In the absence of objections by 11/1 draft-murphy-bgp-vuln-00.txt will be accepted as an IDR WG document. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08726 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 69BE091304; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:09:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2EBD491305; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:09:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FB591304 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9E8BA5DF09; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50ED45DDE4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9HTN>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:09:21 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EC2C@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Susan Hares'" <shares@nexthop.com>, "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Cc: curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org, yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, fenner@research.att.com, zinin@psg.com, nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com Subject: RE: Issue 46 and 48 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:09:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue, Sorry for the confusing usage. I meant to ask "should (the word) 'must' be capitalized (MUST)?" in reference to the text explicitly included "below" the question. Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. egray@celoxnetworks.com 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@nexthop.com] > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 8:22 AM > To: Gray, Eric; idr@merit.edu > Cc: curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org; yakov Rekhter; > fenner@research.att.com; zinin@psg.com; nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > Subject: RE: Issue 46 and 48 > > Eric: > > Thank, it is issue 48 in the text below. > > And Should be capitalized in the following > three locations: > > > Event13: Transport Connection Indication & valid remote peer[changed] > > Definition: Event indicating that transport > Requestvalid source IP address and TCP > port, and valid destination IP address > and TCP Port. The definition of > invalid Source, and invalid Destination > IP address is left to the implementation. > BGP's destination port should be port > > > > > Event14: RCV Transport Connection Indication and Invalid Source or > Destination [changed] > > Definition: Transport request received with either > an invalid source address or port > number or an invalid destination > address or port number. BGP destination > port number should be 179 as defined > by IANA. > > > > 8.2) Description of FSM > > > Idle state > > > In response to a manual start event with the passive Transport > flag (Event 4) or automatic start with the passive Transport flag > (Event 5), the local system: > - initializes all BGP resources, > - sets the connect retry count to zero, > - start the Connect Retry timer with initial value, > - listens for a connection that may be initiated by > the remote peer > [Action B in the FSM table] > - changes its state to Active. > > The exact value of the ConnectRetry timer is a local > matter, but it should be sufficiently large to a > > thanks for the comment. > > Sue > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Susan Hares [mailto:skh@nexthop.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 11:05 AM > > To: idr@merit.edu > > Cc: curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org; yakov Rekhter; > > fenner@research.att.com; zinin@psg.com; nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > > Subject: Issue 46 and 48 > > > > > > I propose putting the text suggested by issue 48 in section 8.2 after > > > > 8.2) Description of FSM > > > > 8.2.1) FSM connections > > > > (text below) > > > > > > 8.2.2) FSM Definition > > > > (text now in 8.2) > > > > > > issue 48 suggested the following text: > > Also, in the text below, should must be capitalized? > > > > > "BGP must maintain a separate FSM for each configured peer plus MUST? > > Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection unless configured > > to remain in the idle state, or configured to remain passive, > > will attempt to to connect to the other. For the purpose of > > this discussion, the active or connect side of the TCP > > connection (the side of a TCP connection (the side sending > > the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or > > listening side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called > > an incoming connection. [See section on the terms active and > > passive below.] > > > > A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 MUST? > > for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. > > Fro each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. FOR > > There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the > > other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier > > is not known. During this time, both an incoming and an outgoing > > connection for the same configured peering may exist. This > > is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). > > > > A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured > > peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the > > peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly > > one TCP connection. > > > > There may be more than one connections between a pair of peers if MAY? > > the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP > > addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" > > to the same peer. > > > > 8.2.1.1) Terms "active" and "passive" > > > > The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for > > almost a decade and have proven useful. The words active and > > passive have slightly different meanings applied to a TCP > > connection or applied to a peer. There is only one active > > side and one passive side to any one TCP connection per the > > definition above [and the state machine below.] When a > > BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the > > active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets > > established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't > > matter which end was active and which end was passive and > > the only difference is which side of the TCP connection has > > port number 179. > > > > > > > > > > ... [snip] > > > > Sue Hares > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA05225 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:04:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5BDD391301; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2918C912FF; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A6991301 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CD3CF5DF18; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from rtp-cse-319.cisco.com (unknown [64.102.253.5]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537FB5DF00 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (dwalton@localhost) by rtp-cse-319.cisco.com (8.11.6+Sun/CA/950118) with ESMTP id g9PD2EJ03075; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:02:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Walton <dwalton@cisco.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A8@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0210250853360.29461-100000@rtp-cse-319.cisco.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A8@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > this is my unofficial understanding of this... > > first the router id's were used > > then there was a "bug" that said they should not be used, > and this bug was fixed so the oldest route was used > The "prefer the oldest external" step was added to prevent a variation of the MED churn. > then they came up with "bgp bestpath compare-routerid" > to restore the older behavior > Customers asked for a knob :) > *i think* this applies to the peer ip (next step) > > not sure how the clust-list applies here > The oldest external check only makes a difference if you are comparing two external routes and this happens right before the router-ID check. Comparing peer addresses is the last step, after the router-ID and cluster-list length have tied. Daniel > -$0.02 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Roque Marques [mailto:roque@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:26 PM > To: Jeffrey Haas > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily > consistant with draft > > > Jeffrey Haas writes: > > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > > the resolution of it. > > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at least > > two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): 1) originator ID (to be > > substituited for router id, when present in path attribute) 2) cluster > > list length 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor > > command) > > - What about arrival time of a route as decision factor... ? > I believe there are implementations that choose the 'older' route (whatever > that is) before router-id in certain circunstances. > > Which may seen as a behaviour in which the route selection does not depend > on the route attributes entirely... > > Pedro. > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA02765 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:17:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 61EB8912FB; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 252EC912FC; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B10912FB for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4AEE05DE40; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from webmail3.rediffmail.com (unknown [202.54.124.148]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id F2E315DDE4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 32617 invoked by uid 510); 25 Oct 2002 12:18:21 -0000 Date: 25 Oct 2002 12:18:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20021025121821.32616.qmail@webmail3.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 25 oct 2002 12:18:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "naresh paliwal" <paliwalnaresh@rediffmail.com> Reply-To: "naresh paliwal" <paliwalnaresh@rediffmail.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: inclusion of AS no in AS path Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Is not it useful to check whether an update contains external peer's AS number in AS path attribute, avoiding this may introduce routing loop. In other words, Are there situations/policies which could restrict a BGP speaker from including his AS number in the route advertised to an external peer ? If yes how will routing loop be pruned? regards -naresh Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA18137 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BB1A9912E2; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 86762912F4; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708A7912E2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 528475DED6; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27D85DED4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OMQXP90310; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OMQTC90303; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9OMQTw20356; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:29 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: using default route to reach peer Message-ID: <20021024182629.F18055@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5AD@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5AD@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>; from JNatale@celoxnetworks.com on Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 05:17:29PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 05:17:29PM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > But I still don't know why you are so angry??? Sorry. Although Pedro is a little cranky about this, I can somewhat sympathise. Too often we are assuming that just because something is in a certain $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDOR's implementation that it is a good thing, and a necessary thing to implement for protocol completeness. It is far more important that we think about "is this necessary for things to work?" and "can we both interoperate if we disagree with this detail?". And sometimes, its worth thinking about whether or not a certain $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDOR made the right choice in their implementation. If they did, incorporate it into the spec. If not... :-) > -Jonathan -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14492 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 920E0912EE; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5D700912F0; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5D1912EE for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 41AAF5DECF; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F410B5DEC9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9D0Q>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EC27@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Pedro Roque Marques'" <roque@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Pedro, I believe if you think about the implications of peering with a device for which you do not have a route learned from some routing protocol, you will see that doing so by default is not a good idea. If the administrator wants to force this behavior, they could simply add a static route for the peer. That said, however, I see no reason to get too acrimonious about this issue. It is not possible to engineer common sense into a specification, so it is probably fine to leave this issue alone. Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. egray@celoxnetworks.com 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Roque Marques [mailto:roque@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:08 PM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer > > Natale, Jonathan writes: > > > key word is "MAY" key concept is documenting existing behavior: "one > > goal of the update is document existing practice" > > --http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html > > Can i add to the spec 'an implementation MAY choose to calculate the > first 100 prime numbers between generating 2 sets of update > messages'... ? > > > "The point specifically here is that an implementation must be able > > to deal w/ potentially looping routes. i.e. a route which by being > > installed in a routing table causes itself to be looping..." > > ...WRONG, that is not the point. > > Are you going to put forward any argument other than the capital > letters ? > > If that is not the point, do you mind giving us a rational for not > peering over the default route. Why is it such a good idea ? > > The fact of the matter is that it works just fine when the apropriate > safe gurards against looping routes are in place, usually for > applications other than strictly internet routing. > > Pedro. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14493 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1C06F912ED; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DF5B7912F1; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA58912ED for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6DC6A5DE35; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264785DEC9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9D03>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:30 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5AD@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Pedro Roque Marques'" <roque@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Pedro, I don't like your tone. Just stating "I disagree" would suffice. Please. Thank you. No argument is needed, it was clearly not the point. Anyway, I'll assume (until Of have a chance to try it) that Juniper does peer based on the default route. But I still don't know why you are so angry??? Sorry. Peace, -Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Pedro Roque Marques [mailto:roque@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:08 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer Natale, Jonathan writes: > key word is "MAY" key concept is documenting existing behavior: "one > goal of the update is document existing practice" > --http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html Can i add to the spec 'an implementation MAY choose to calculate the first 100 prime numbers between generating 2 sets of update messages'... ? > "The point specifically here is that an implementation must be able to > deal w/ potentially looping routes. i.e. a route which by being > installed in a routing table causes itself to be looping..." ...WRONG, > that is not the point. Are you going to put forward any argument other than the capital letters ? If that is not the point, do you mind giving us a rational for not peering over the default route. Why is it such a good idea ? The fact of the matter is that it works just fine when the apropriate safe gurards against looping routes are in place, usually for applications other than strictly internet routing. Pedro. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA13869 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:09:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 85509912EC; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4E8C8912ED; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0DD912EC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id EDDC35DED8; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:08:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0EF5DED6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:08:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roque-bsd.juniper.net (roque-bsd.juniper.net [172.17.12.183]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OL8Om47231; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:08:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roque@juniper.net) Received: (from roque@localhost) by roque-bsd.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g9OL8OB30472; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:08:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roque) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200210242108.g9OL8OB30472@roque-bsd.juniper.net> From: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5AA@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5AA@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Natale, Jonathan writes: > key word is "MAY" key concept is documenting existing behavior: "one > goal of the update is document existing practice" > --http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html Can i add to the spec 'an implementation MAY choose to calculate the first 100 prime numbers between generating 2 sets of update messages'... ? > "The point specifically here is that an implementation must be able > to deal w/ potentially looping routes. i.e. a route which by being > installed in a routing table causes itself to be looping..." > ...WRONG, that is not the point. Are you going to put forward any argument other than the capital letters ? If that is not the point, do you mind giving us a rational for not peering over the default route. Why is it such a good idea ? The fact of the matter is that it works just fine when the apropriate safe gurards against looping routes are in place, usually for applications other than strictly internet routing. Pedro. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13359 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D3D6C912EA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 94C39912EB; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48104912EA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 305185DECA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from nemesis.systems.pipex.net (nemesis.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.8]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96565DEC6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tom3 (usercr19.uk.uudial.com [62.188.156.246]) by nemesis.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 54FD516007E32; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:58:56 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002601c27b9f$b527dbe0$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: <idr@merit.edu>, "Susan Hares" <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: Re: FSM issues - first of many discussions Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:53:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue Two thoughts. First, not all FSM issues made it to the issues list - some did not make it to the IDR list in the first place eg a suggestion of mine to simplify the Connect and Active states by removing the Open Delay timer expired substate into a separate OpenDelay state which then removes much duplication and also simplifies other issues including some which do appear on the list eg issue 47. Second, I continue to see draft-hares-bgp-statemt-01.txt in the IETF repository; not ietf-draft-hares-statmt-02.txt, and I do think that so much has been raised over the FSM, we are in need of a new text (and I don't know if that is -02 or -03) incorporating some of the changes - eg the wording consistency comments of Xia W Zhao and Jeff Haas - to provide a fresh base to work from. I think the fastest way forward is in a number of steps, via a number of versions of the FSM, and that trying to make a giant step, in changes or in elapsed time or whatever, ends up slower. Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> Date: 24 October 2002 16:47 Subject: FSM issues - first of many discussions >My understanding from Andrews 10-01-2002 version of the >IDR issues, is that the following issues did not reach consensus: > > 4,8,10,11,18,19,24,32,32.1, 34, 39, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53 > >Of these issues, I believe the following are associated with the >FSM portion of the specification: > > 41 - Mention the FSM Internal Timers > 46 - FSM Connection Collision Detections > 47 - FSM - Add Explicit State Changing wording > 48 - Explicitly Defined Processing of Incomming Connections > 49 - Explicitly Define Event Generation > >Please let know if any other "non-consensus" issues are related >to the state machine. > >I would like to examine these issue to reach the consensus needed >for me to re-edit the base draft wording. > >If you have comments associated with these issues >on the BGP FSM draft (ietf-draft-hares-statmt-02.txt) or the >BGP Peer Persistent Oscillation (ietf-draft-hares-backoff-01.txt). >associated with these issues, please clearly state which draft you >are commenting on. > >Sue Hares >skh@nexthop.com > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13212 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CE3AE912E9; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9B8EB912EA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B51F912E9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 42D615DEC4; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C275DEB9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9D7R>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:28 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5AA@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Pedro Roque Marques'" <roque@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk key word is "MAY" key concept is documenting existing behavior: "one goal of the update is document existing practice" --http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html "The point specifically here is that an implementation must be able to deal w/ potentially looping routes. i.e. a route which by being installed in a routing table causes itself to be looping..." ...WRONG, that is not the point. But that IS already covered in the draft (it was NOT in the RFC). but I will concede that "they" do have a bug such that they will install bgp routes that will become mutually recursive once installed. 'nough said. I see the "not peer based on default route" as confronting the situation when you are multihomed to 2 different AS's and get the default route from 1 and are doing multihop to the other, and then the route to the multihop peer goes away. Do you want to peer to the multihop peer THRU the first peer??? Probably not. -----Original Message----- From: Pedro Roque Marques [mailto:roque@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:47 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: using default route to reach peer Natale, Jonathan writes: > Folks, IOS does not allow a BGP peer to be reached via the default > route. This seems like a good rule to me. Is this specified in the/a > RFC/Draft somewhere? Should it be added as a "MAY"? I'm wondering if the document when finished will be published w/ by Cisco Press... it is starting to seem as if it comes closer to document and semi-officially sanction the behaviour of a particular implementation than actually address the underlying technical issues. The point specifically here is that an implementation must be able to deal w/ potentially looping routes. i.e. a route which by being installed in a routing table causes itself to be looping... A simple minded aproach to the problem above that some implementations take is to simply deny peering on the default route w/ the logic that any route installed via that peering session that would be more specific for the peering session address or nexthop of the default route would cause all received routes to become looping. There are implementations however that have a much more complete aproach to the root problem and have no use for the quick fast hack of denying peering on default. The later is imho an implementation specific quirk which is probably already documented sufficiently on books published under the label of the equipment vendor in question. I've no problem w/ any particular vendor or its implementation but puting down as a standard the solutions of a particular implementation, which may or may not be the most apropriate, i don't think the spec is doing a service... Pedro. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA12088 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 338D3912E5; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id ECEBE912E4; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732ED912E5 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 573545DEC7; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31845DEC6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9DZW>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:12 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A9@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'vrishab sikand'" <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C27B9C.FDCB7800" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B9C.FDCB7800 Content-Type: text/plain makes sense did you verify this? so the steps on the web are wrong does bgp bestpath router-id effect this? -----Original Message----- From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:45 PM To: Yakov Rekhter; Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai. Cc: vrishab sikand; Jeffrey Haas; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you can't take it into account for your route selection. In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account various attributes defined in the RR spec). Yakov. I agree. Thanks for the explanation. It seems that every implementation must atleast be able to decode ORIGINATOR ID and CLUSTER LIST attributes, even if they dont support rest of RR features. If they dont do so, then they cannot be deployed in a network which has route reflectors. Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: Venu, > Hi, > It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for > same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add > this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you can't take it into account for your route selection. In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account various attributes defined in the RR spec). Yakov. > This is cisco's best path selection algorithm > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml > > > Venu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM > To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily > consistant with draft > > > > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have > "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease > the migration to RR's. > > > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as > a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the > main bgp specification. > > > > Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > > Jeff, > > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > > the resolution of it. > > > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > > in path attribute) > > 2) cluster list length > > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence > of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the > Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section > on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). > > Yakov. > > > > > _____ > > Do you Yahoo!? > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your > web site > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > > > > > class=985534615-24102002>Hi, > > class=985534615-24102002> &nbs p; It > is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same destination > with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So > i feel we can add this in base spec with indication as > optional to implement. > > class=985534615-24102002> > Thi s > is cisco's best path selection algorithm > > class=985534615-24102002> > > class=985534615-24102002> > href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/wa r p/public/459/25.shtml > > class=985534615-24102002> > Ven u > > > class=985534615-24102002> > > class=985534615-24102002> > > class=985534615-24102002> > > class=985534615-24102002>-----Original > Message----- From: vrishab sikand > [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 > PM To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas Cc: > idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route > selections not necessarily consistant with draft > > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: thos e > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "a ny" > knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the > migration to RR's. > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not > configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these > belong in the main bgp specification. > > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: > > style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" >Jeff, > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced &g t; > the resolution of it. > > Our route selection tie-breaking > process in -17 doesn't match at > least two of the > $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > Noted differences are (per vrisha b > sikand): > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when > present > in path attribute) > 2) cluster list length > 3) > peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence of > Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the Route > Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section on how > Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection > process). Yakov. > > _____ > Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web <http://webhosting.yahoo.com/> Hosting > - > Let the expert host your web site > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0-- _____ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting <http://webhosting.yahoo.com/> - Let the expert host your web site ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B9C.FDCB7800 Content-Type: text/html <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=896463320-24102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>makes sense</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=896463320-24102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>did you verify this?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=896463320-24102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>so the steps on the web are wrong</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=896463320-24102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=896463320-24102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>does bgp bestpath router-id effect this?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:45 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Yakov Rekhter; Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai.<BR><B>Cc:</B> vrishab sikand; Jeffrey Haas; idr@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft <BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <P>If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't<BR>recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined<BR>in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you<BR>can't take it into account for your route selection. <BR><BR>In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case<BR>you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the<BR>RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account<BR>various attributes defined in the RR spec).<BR><BR>Yakov. <P>I agree. Thanks for the explanation. <P>It seems that every implementation must atleast be able to decode ORIGINATOR ID and CLUSTER LIST attributes, even if they dont support rest of RR features. If they dont do so, then they cannot be deployed in a network which has route reflectors. <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <P>Venu,<BR><BR>> Hi,<BR>> It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for<BR>> same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not<BR>> enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add<BR>> this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. <BR><BR>If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't<BR>recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined<BR>in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you<BR>can't take it into account for your route selection. <BR><BR>In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case<BR>you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the<BR>RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account<BR>various attributes defined in the RR spec).<BR><BR>Yakov.</P> <P><BR><BR>> This is cisco's best path selection algorithm<BR>> <BR>> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml<BR>> <HTTP: www.cisco.com warp public 459 25.shtml><BR>> <BR>> Venu <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com]<BR>> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM<BR>> To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas<BR>> Cc: idr@merit.edu<BR>> Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily<BR>> consistant with draft <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those<BR>> routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have<BR>> "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease<BR>> the migration to RR's. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as<BR>> a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the<BR>> main bgp specification. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Yakov Rekhter <YAKOV@JUNIPER.NET>wrote: <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jeff,<BR>> <BR>> > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>> > the resolution of it.<BR>> > <BR>> > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> > <BR>> > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand):<BR>> > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present<BR>> > in path attribute)<BR>> > 2) cluster list length<BR>> > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR>> <BR>> These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR>> of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>> Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>> on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process).<BR>> <BR>> Yakov.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _____ <BR>> <BR>> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>> Y! Web Hosting <HTTP: webhosting.yahoo.com />- Let the expert host your<BR>> web site<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0<BR>> Content-Type: text/html;<BR>> charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR><BR>> <BR>> </P> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002>Hi,</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002> &nbs<BR>p; It <BR>> is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same destination <BR>> with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not <BR>> enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So<BR><BR>> i feel we can add this in base spec with indication as <BR><BR>> optional to implement. </SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Thi<BR>s <BR>> is cisco's best path selection algorithm</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002> <A <br>> href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/war<BR>p/public/459/25.shtml</A></SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Ven<BR>u <BR>> </SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original<BR><BR>> Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> vrishab sikand <BR>> [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 <BR>> PM<BR><B>To:</B> Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas<BR><B>Cc:</B> <BR>> idr@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: missing issue - implemented route <BR>> selections not necessarily consistant with draft <BR><BR></DIV><BR>> <BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><BR>> <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: thos<BR>e <BR>> routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "a<BR>ny" <BR>> knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the <BR>> migration to RR's. <BR>> <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not <BR>> configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these<BR><BR>> belong in the main bgp specification. <BR>> <P><BR>> <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: <BR>> <BLOCKQUOTE <br>> style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"<BR>>Jeff,<BR><BR>> <BR>> Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>&g<BR>t; <BR>> the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route selection tie-breaking <BR>> process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the <BR>> $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per vrisha<BR>b <BR>> sikand):<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when<BR><BR>> present<BR>> in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list length<BR>><BR>3) <BR>> peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR>> <BR><BR>These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR><BR>of <BR>> Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>Route <BR>> Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>on how <BR>> Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection <BR>> process).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>> <P><BR><BR>> <HR SIZE=1> <BR>> Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/">Y! Web Hosting</A<BR>> - <BR>> Let the expert host your web site</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>> <BR>> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0--</BLOCKQUOTE></A> <P><BR> <HR SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</A> - Let the expert host your web site</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B9C.FDCB7800-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA12079 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 72932912E3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2B8D5912E4; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A555912E3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 41FDB5DEC7; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57345DEC6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9DZB>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:32:58 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A8@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:32:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk this is my unofficial understanding of this... first the router id's were used then there was a "bug" that said they should not be used, and this bug was fixed so the oldest route was used then they came up with "bgp bestpath compare-routerid" to restore the older behavior *i think* this applies to the peer ip (next step) not sure how the clust-list applies here -$0.02 -----Original Message----- From: Pedro Roque Marques [mailto:roque@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:26 PM To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Jeffrey Haas writes: > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > the resolution of it. > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at least > two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): 1) originator ID (to be > substituited for router id, when present in path attribute) 2) cluster > list length 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor > command) - What about arrival time of a route as decision factor... ? I believe there are implementations that choose the 'older' route (whatever that is) before router-id in certain circunstances. Which may seen as a behaviour in which the route selection does not depend on the route attributes entirely... Pedro. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06146 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 30F2D912DA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DFE3D912DB; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D20F912DA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5DF1A5DE3E; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061855DECF for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roque-bsd.juniper.net (roque-bsd.juniper.net [172.17.12.183]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OIkvm34855; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roque@juniper.net) Received: (from roque@localhost) by roque-bsd.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g9OIkvG30296; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roque) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200210241846.g9OIkvG30296@roque-bsd.juniper.net> From: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: using default route to reach peer In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Natale, Jonathan writes: > Folks, IOS does not allow a BGP peer to be reached via the default > route. This seems like a good rule to me. Is this specified in > the/a RFC/Draft somewhere? Should it be added as a "MAY"? I'm wondering if the document when finished will be published w/ by Cisco Press... it is starting to seem as if it comes closer to document and semi-officially sanction the behaviour of a particular implementation than actually address the underlying technical issues. The point specifically here is that an implementation must be able to deal w/ potentially looping routes. i.e. a route which by being installed in a routing table causes itself to be looping... A simple minded aproach to the problem above that some implementations take is to simply deny peering on the default route w/ the logic that any route installed via that peering session that would be more specific for the peering session address or nexthop of the default route would cause all received routes to become looping. There are implementations however that have a much more complete aproach to the root problem and have no use for the quick fast hack of denying peering on default. The later is imho an implementation specific quirk which is probably already documented sufficiently on books published under the label of the equipment vendor in question. I've no problem w/ any particular vendor or its implementation but puting down as a standard the solutions of a particular implementation, which may or may not be the most apropriate, i don't think the spec is doing a service... Pedro. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06014 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 56F19912D9; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 20DC9912DA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CAC912D9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 108EF5DEC3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from web12804.mail.yahoo.com (web12804.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.39]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 1739E5DEC1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20021024184526.28314.qmail@web12804.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.246.215.128] by web12804.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:45:26 PDT Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:45:26 -0700 (PDT) From: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <venug@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200210241612.g9OGCem19369@merlot.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1005831156-1035485126=:28109" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --0-1005831156-1035485126=:28109 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you can't take it into account for your route selection. In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account various attributes defined in the RR spec). Yakov. I agree. Thanks for the explanation. It seems that every implementation must atleast be able to decode ORIGINATOR ID and CLUSTER LIST attributes, even if they dont support rest of RR features. If they dont do so, then they cannot be deployed in a network which has route reflectors. Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: Venu, > Hi, > It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for > same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add > this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you can't take it into account for your route selection. In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account various attributes defined in the RR spec). Yakov. > This is cisco's best path selection algorithm > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml > > > Venu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM > To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily > consistant with draft > > > > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have > "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease > the migration to RR's. > > > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as > a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the > main bgp specification. > > > > Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > > Jeff, > > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > > the resolution of it. > > > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > > in path attribute) > > 2) cluster list length > > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence > of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the > Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section > on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). > > Yakov. > > > > > _____ > > Do you Yahoo!? > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your > web site > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > > > > > class=985534615-24102002>Hi, > > class=985534615-24102002> &nbs p; It > is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same destination > with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So > i feel we can add this in base spec with indication as > optional to implement. > > class=985534615-24102002> > Thi s > is cisco's best path selection algorithm > > class=985534615-24102002> > > class=985534615-24102002> > href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/war p/public/459/25.shtml > > class=985534615-24102002> > Ven u > > > class=985534615-24102002> > > class=985534615-24102002> > > class=985534615-24102002> > > class=985534615-24102002>-----Original > Message----- From: vrishab sikand > [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 > PM To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas Cc: > idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route > selections not necessarily consistant with draft > > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: thos e > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "a ny" > knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the > migration to RR's. > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not > configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these > belong in the main bgp specification. > > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: > > style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" >Jeff, > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced &g t; > the resolution of it. > > Our route selection tie-breaking > process in -17 doesn't match at > least two of the > $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > Noted differences are (per vrisha b > sikand): > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when > present > in path attribute) > 2) cluster list length > 3) > peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence of > Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the Route > Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section on how > Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection > process). Yakov. > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting> - > Let the expert host your web site > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0-- --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site --0-1005831156-1035485126=:28109 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <P>If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't<BR>recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined<BR>in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you<BR>can't take it into account for your route selection. <BR><BR>In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case<BR>you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the<BR>RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account<BR>various attributes defined in the RR spec).<BR><BR>Yakov. <P>I agree. Thanks for the explanation. <P>It seems that every implementation must atleast be able to decode ORIGINATOR ID and CLUSTER LIST attributes, even if they dont support rest of RR features. If they dont do so, then they cannot be deployed in a network which has route reflectors. <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <P>Venu,<BR><BR>> Hi,<BR>> It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for<BR>> same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not<BR>> enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add<BR>> this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. <BR><BR>If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't<BR>recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined<BR>in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you<BR>can't take it into account for your route selection. <BR><BR>In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case<BR>you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the<BR>RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account<BR>various attributes defined in the RR spec).<BR><BR>Yakov.</P> <P><BR><BR>> This is cisco's best path selection algorithm<BR>> <BR>> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml<BR>> <HTTP: 25.shtml 459 public warp www.cisco.com><BR>> <BR>> Venu <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com]<BR>> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM<BR>> To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas<BR>> Cc: idr@merit.edu<BR>> Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily<BR>> consistant with draft <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those<BR>> routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have<BR>> "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease<BR>> the migration to RR's. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as<BR>> a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the<BR>> main bgp specification. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Yakov Rekhter <YAKOV@JUNIPER.NET>wrote: <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jeff,<BR>> <BR>> > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>> > the resolution of it.<BR>> > <BR>> > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> > <BR>> > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand):<BR>> > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present<BR>> > in path attribute)<BR>> > 2) cluster list length<BR>> > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR>> <BR>> These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR>> of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>> Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>> on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process).<BR>> <BR>> Yakov.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _____ <BR>> <BR>> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>> Y! Web Hosting <HTTP: webhosting.yahoo.com />- Let the expert host your<BR>> web site<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0<BR>> Content-Type: text/html;<BR>> charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR><BR>> <BR>> </P> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002>Hi,</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002> &nbs<BR>p; It <BR>> is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same destination <BR>> with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not <BR>> enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So<BR><BR>> i feel we can add this in base spec with indication as <BR><BR>> optional to implement. </SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Thi<BR>s <BR>> is cisco's best path selection algorithm</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002> <A <br>> href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/war<BR>p/public/459/25.shtml</A></SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Ven<BR>u <BR>> </SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN <br>> class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original<BR><BR>> Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> vrishab sikand <BR>> [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 <BR>> PM<BR><B>To:</B> Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas<BR><B>Cc:</B> <BR>> idr@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: missing issue - implemented route <BR>> selections not necessarily consistant with draft <BR><BR></DIV><BR>> <BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><BR>> <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: thos<BR>e <BR>> routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "a<BR>ny" <BR>> knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the <BR>> migration to RR's. <BR>> <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not <BR>> configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these<BR><BR>> belong in the main bgp specification. <BR>> <P><BR>> <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: <BR>> <BLOCKQUOTE <br>> style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"<BR>>Jeff,<BR><BR>> <BR>> Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>&g<BR>t; <BR>> the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route selection tie-breaking <BR>> process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the <BR>> $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per vrisha<BR>b <BR>> sikand):<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when<BR><BR>> present<BR>> in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list length<BR>><BR>3) <BR>> peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR>> <BR><BR>These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR><BR>of <BR>> Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>Route <BR>> Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>on how <BR>> Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection <BR>> process).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>> <P><BR><BR>> <HR SIZE=1> <BR>> Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/">Y! Web Hosting</A<BR>> - <BR>> Let the expert host your web site</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>> <BR>> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0--</BLOCKQUOTE></A><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</a> - Let the expert host your web site --0-1005831156-1035485126=:28109-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05668 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 44BCA912DE; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:37:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1C1F8912DD; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE822912DB for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B3D165DEC4; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from web12802.mail.yahoo.com (web12802.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.37]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 63EB35DEBC for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20021024183739.38645.qmail@web12802.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.246.215.128] by web12802.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:39 PDT Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:39 -0700 (PDT) From: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft To: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200210241826.g9OIQNM30271@roque-bsd.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-386623435-1035484659=:38642" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --0-386623435-1035484659=:38642 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii on "careful" reading you may observe that step is just before using configured peer id. i.e. All attributes which come with the route or session are used first. If they are equal only then use time. In order avoid a flap for no good reason. Having said that, using time does not make for very deterministic route selection. Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net> wrote: Jeffrey Haas writes: > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > the resolution of it. > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): 1) originator ID (to be > substituited for router id, when present in path attribute) 2) > cluster list length 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the > neighbor command) - What about arrival time of a route as decision factor... ? I believe there are implementations that choose the 'older' route (whatever that is) before router-id in certain circunstances. Which may seen as a behaviour in which the route selection does not depend on the route attributes entirely... Pedro --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site --0-386623435-1035484659=:38642 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <P>on "careful" reading you may observe that step is just before using configured peer id. i.e. All attributes which come with the route or session are used first. If they are equal only then use time. In order avoid a flap for no good reason. <P>Having said that, using time does not make for very deterministic route selection. <P> <B><I>Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <P>Jeffrey Haas writes:<BR><BR>> Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>> the resolution of it.<BR><BR>> Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR><BR>> Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): 1) originator ID (to be<BR>> substituited for router id, when present in path attribute) 2)<BR>> cluster list length 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the<BR>> neighbor command)<BR><BR>- What about arrival time of a route as decision factor... ?<BR>I believe there are implementations that choose the 'older' route<BR>(whatever that is) before router-id in certain circunstances.<BR><BR>Which may seen as a behaviour in which the route selection does not<BR>depend on the route attributes entirely...<BR><BR>Pedro</P></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</a> - Let the expert host your web site --0-386623435-1035484659=:38642-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA04955 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E39E891203; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AF652912D6; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664D791203 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 51E415DEB0; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71425DE53 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roque-bsd.juniper.net (roque-bsd.juniper.net [172.17.12.183]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OIQNm32699; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roque@juniper.net) Received: (from roque@localhost) by roque-bsd.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g9OIQNM30271; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roque) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200210241826.g9OIQNM30271@roque-bsd.juniper.net> From: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft In-Reply-To: <20021024105754.B18055@nexthop.com> References: <20021024105754.B18055@nexthop.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeffrey Haas writes: > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > the resolution of it. > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): 1) originator ID (to be > substituited for router id, when present in path attribute) 2) > cluster list length 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the > neighbor command) - What about arrival time of a route as decision factor... ? I believe there are implementations that choose the 'older' route (whatever that is) before router-id in certain circunstances. Which may seen as a behaviour in which the route selection does not depend on the route attributes entirely... Pedro. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00938 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3D54D912D3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 08902912D4; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD80912D3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 677065DEC1; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AD35DEBC for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9CZV>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EC21@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Susan Hares'" <skh@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Cc: curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org, yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, fenner@research.att.com, zinin@psg.com, nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com Subject: RE: Issue 46 and 48 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue, Please see below... Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. egray@celoxnetworks.com 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares [mailto:skh@nexthop.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 11:05 AM > To: idr@merit.edu > Cc: curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org; yakov Rekhter; > fenner@research.att.com; zinin@psg.com; nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > Subject: Issue 46 and 48 > > > I propose putting the text suggested by issue 48 in section 8.2 after > > 8.2) Description of FSM > > 8.2.1) FSM connections > > (text below) > > > 8.2.2) FSM Definition > > (text now in 8.2) > > > issue 47 suggested the following text: Issue 48? Also, in the text below, should must be capitalized? > > "BGP must maintain a separate FSM for each configured peer plus > Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection unless configured > to remain in the idle state, or configured to remain passive, > will attempt to to connect to the other. For the purpose of > this discussion, the active or connect side of the TCP > connection (the side of a TCP connection (the side sending > the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or > listening side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called > an incoming connection. [See section on the terms active and > passive below.] > > A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 > for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. > Fro each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. > There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the > other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier > is not known. During this time, both an incoming and an outgoing > connection for the same configured peering may exist. This > is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). > > A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured > peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the > peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly > one TCP connection. > > There may be more than one connections between a pair of peers if > the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP > addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" > to the same peer. > > 8.2.1.1) Terms "active" and "passive" > > The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for > almost a decade and have proven useful. The words active and > passive have slightly different meanings applied to a TCP > connection or applied to a peer. There is only one active > side and one passive side to any one TCP connection per the > definition above [and the state machine below.] When a > BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the > active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets > established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't > matter which end was active and which end was passive and > the only difference is which side of the TCP connection has > port number 179. > > > > > ... [snip] > > Sue Hares > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA29926 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:57:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5DE8B912D2; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2F4A3912D3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F6A912D2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8E4A25DEB1; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5965DE8A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OGuZm22996; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:56:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210241656.g9OGuZm22996@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <venug@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:20:29 +0530." <55E277B99171E041ABF5F4B1C6DDCA06B0C967@haritha.hclt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <59806.1035478595.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:56:35 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Venu, > I agreeing with your point for time being, But It really looks valid > point to me to add in the base spec and I guess Cisco do consider the > "Originator_ID" /"Cluster list" attributes for Best route selection process > even if we won't enable RR features on the router. As I said before, don't confuse *enabling* RR feature on a router with *implementing* RR spec on a router. The latter doesn't automatically imply the former. To consider CLUSTER_LIST for route selection you need to implement RR spec on a router, irrespective of whether you configure the router as an RR or not. > My request is, at least > we should add this issue in next BGP base spec version (..After updating RR > spec with best route selection process), So that we can give the RR spec > reference in the BGP base spec. The base BGP spec will have a pointer to the RR spec. And I certainly agree with you that the RR spec has to be updated to cover route selection process. Yakov. > > > Venu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:43 PM > To: Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai. > Cc: vrishab sikand; Jeffrey Haas; idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not > necessarily consistant with draft > > > Venu, > > > Hi, > > It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for > > same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are > not > > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can > add > > this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. > > If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't > recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined > in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you > can't take it into account for your route selection. > > In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case > you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the > RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account > various attributes defined in the RR spec). > > Yakov. > > > This is cisco's best path selection algorithm > > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml > > <http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml> > > > > Venu > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM > > To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily > > consistant with draft > > > > > > > > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those > > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have > > "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease > > the migration to RR's. > > > > > > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured > as > > a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in > the > > main bgp specification. > > > > > > > > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: > > > > > > Jeff, > > > > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > > > the resolution of it. > > > > > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > > > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > > > > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > > > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > > > in path attribute) > > > 2) cluster list length > > > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > > > > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence > > of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the > > Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section > > on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). > > > > Yakov. > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Y! Web Hosting <http://webhosting.yahoo.com/> - Let the expert host your > > web site > > > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0 > > Content-Type: text/html; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > > <HTML><HEAD> > > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> > > > > > > <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> > > <BODY> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002>Hi,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > > class=985534615-24102002> &nb > s > p; It > > is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same > destination > > with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. > So > > > i feel we can add this in base spec with indication > as > > > optional to implement. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002>Thi > s > > is cisco's best path selection algorithm</SPAN></FONT></DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002> > <A > > > href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/wa > r > p/public/459/25.shtml</A></SPAN></FONT></DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002>Ven > u > > </SPAN></FONT></DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma > size=2>-----Original > > > Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> vrishab sikand > > [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 24, 2002 > 9:16 > > PM<BR><B>To:</B> Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas<BR><B>Cc:</B> > > idr@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: missing issue - implemented route > > selections not necessarily consistant with draft <BR><BR></DIV> > > <BLOCKQUOTE></FONT> > > <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: > thos > e > > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have > "a > ny" > > knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the > > migration to RR's. > > <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are > not > > configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe > these > > > belong in the main bgp specification. > > <P> > > <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: > > <BLOCKQUOTE > > style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: > 5px" > >Jeff,<BR><BR>> > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've > misplaced<BR>&g > t; > > the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route selection > tie-breaking > > process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the > > $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per > vrisha > b > > sikand):<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, > when > > > present<BR>> in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list > length<BR>> > 3) > > peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > > <BR><BR>These are all have to do with route selection in the > presence<BR> > of > > Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>Route > > Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>on > how > > Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection > > process).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE> > > <P><BR> > > <HR SIZE=1> > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web > Hosting</A > > - > > Let the expert host your web site</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA29451 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BF9EB912D1; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 911309123A; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90410912D2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:48:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 649FF5DE8A; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:48:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ganesh.ctd.hctech.com (unknown [202.54.64.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4520B5DEB1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by GANESH with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <48ZCD483>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:19:35 +0530 Message-ID: <55E277B99171E041ABF5F4B1C6DDCA06B0C967@haritha.hclt.com> From: "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <venug@ctd.hcltech.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <venug@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:20:29 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi I agreeing with your point for time being, But It really looks valid point to me to add in the base spec and I guess Cisco do consider the "Originator_ID" /"Cluster list" attributes for Best route selection process even if we won't enable RR features on the router. My request is, at least we should add this issue in next BGP base spec version (..After updating RR spec with best route selection process), So that we can give the RR spec reference in the BGP base spec. Venu -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:43 PM To: Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai. Cc: vrishab sikand; Jeffrey Haas; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Venu, > Hi, > It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for > same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add > this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you can't take it into account for your route selection. In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account various attributes defined in the RR spec). Yakov. > This is cisco's best path selection algorithm > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml > <http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml> > > Venu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM > To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily > consistant with draft > > > > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have > "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease > the migration to RR's. > > > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as > a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the > main bgp specification. > > > > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: > > > Jeff, > > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > > the resolution of it. > > > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > > in path attribute) > > 2) cluster list length > > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence > of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the > Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section > on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). > > Yakov. > > > > > _____ > > Do you Yahoo!? > Y! Web Hosting <http://webhosting.yahoo.com/> - Let the expert host your > web site > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD> > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> > > > <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002>Hi,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002> &nb s p; It > is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same destination > with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So > i feel we can add this in base spec with indication as > optional to implement. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Thi s > is cisco's best path selection algorithm</SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002> <A > href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/wa r p/public/459/25.shtml</A></SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Ven u > </SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original > Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> vrishab sikand > [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 > PM<BR><B>To:</B> Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas<BR><B>Cc:</B> > idr@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: missing issue - implemented route > selections not necessarily consistant with draft <BR><BR></DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE></FONT> > <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: thos e > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "a ny" > knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the > migration to RR's. > <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not > configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these > belong in the main bgp specification. > <P> > <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: > <BLOCKQUOTE > style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" >Jeff,<BR><BR>> > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>&g t; > the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route selection tie-breaking > process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the > $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per vrisha b > sikand):<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when > present<BR>> in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list length<BR>> 3) > peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > <BR><BR>These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR> of > Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>Route > Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>on how > Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection > process).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE> > <P><BR> > <HR SIZE=1> > Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</A > - > Let the expert host your web site</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28282 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4146C912CC; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0E877912CF; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B611D912CC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A59E85DEBF; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FC05DEBD for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OGROi80167; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:27:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Received: from SKHtemp.nexthop.com (216-40-174-179.livonia.tir.com [216.40.174.179]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OGR2C80153; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:27:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024121425.02c6dd78@mail.nexthop.com> X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:15:03 -0400 To: idr@merit.edu From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: Fwd: Issue 47 - per Andrew's latest list Cc: skh@nexthop.com, skh@ndzh.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This issue is closed per Andrew's latest list. Please ignore the previous mail. Sue >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:23:34 -0400 >To: idr@merit.edu >From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> >Subject: Issue 47 >Cc: yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, skh@ndzh.com, >fenner@research.att.com, zinin@psg.com > > >Issue 47 indicates > > " in most places, the actions taken on receipt of > an event include what the new state will be or that it > remains unchanged. But there are a significant number of places > where this is not done (Eg Connect state Events 14, 15, 16]" > >I believe the text below indicates the state and the events. >Can I consider this item closed? > >Sue Hares > > > > >============= >The text for Connect State is below. I find Event 13,14,15 >to be have this covered. > > >Connect State: > > In this state, BGP is waiting for the transport protocol > connection to be completed. > > If the transport connection succeeds [Event 15 or > Event 16], the local system checks the "Delay Open > Flag". If the Delay Open flag is set, the local system: > - clears the ConnectRetry timer, > - set the BGP Open Delay timer to the initial > value. > [Action ZZ in FSM table] > > If the Delay Open flag is not set, the local system: > - clears the ConnectRetry timer, > - completes BGP initialization > - send an Open message to its peer, > - sets Hold timer to a large value, > - Change the state to Open Sent > [Action H in the FSM table] > > A hold timer value of 4 minutes is suggested. > > If the Open Delay timer expires [Event 12] in the connect > state, > - send an Open message to its peer, > - set the Hold timer to a large value, > [Action H in the FSM Table], and > - change the state to Open Sent. > > If the BGP port receives a Transport connection indication > [Event 13], the Transport connection is processed (actions AA or > AB in the FSM table) and the connection remains > in the connected state. > > If the transport connection receives an Transport indication > that is invalid or unconfigured. [Event 14]: > - the transport connection is rejected. > [Action L in the FSM table] > > If the transport connection fails (timeout or transport > disconnect) [Event17], the local system: > - restarts the ConnectRetry timer, > - continues to listen for a connection that may be > initiated by the remote BGP peer, and > [Action G in the FSM table] > - changes its state to Active. > > > If an Open is received with the BGP Delay Open timer is > running [Event 19], the local system: > - clears the connect retry timer (cleared to zero), > - completes the BGP initialization, > - Stops and clears the BGP Open Delay timer > - Sends an Open message > > [Action H in the FSM table], and > - changes its state to Open Confirm. > > > The start events [Event 1, 3-6] are ignored in connect > state. > > A manual stop event[Event2], the local system: > - drops the transport connection, > - releases all BGP resources, > - sets connect retry count to zero > - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero) > [Action Z in the FSM table] > - goes to Idle state. > > In response to the ConnectRetry timer expired event(Event > 9), the local system: > - Sets the MIB FSM error information with ConnectRetry > expired, > - drops the transport connection > - restarts the ConnectRetry timer > - initiates a transport connection to the other BGP > peer, > - continues to listen for a connection that may be > initiated by the remote BGP peer, and > [Action O in the FSM table] > - stays in Connect state. > > In response to any other events [Events 7-8, 10-11, 18, 20- > 27] the local system: > - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), > - drops the Transport connection, > - release all BGP resources, > - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1, > - [optionally] performs bgp peer oscillation damping, and > [Action D in the FSM table], > - goes to Idle state. > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28191 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 21F5C912CA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:25:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E56CF912CC; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:25:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93BE912CA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:25:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A1B805DEBD; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:25:48 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C3E5DEB1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OGPj680101; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:25:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Received: from SKHtemp.nexthop.com (216-40-174-179.livonia.tir.com [216.40.174.179]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OGPbC80086; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:25:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024121322.01dab5d8@mail.nexthop.com> X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:13:47 -0400 To: idr@merit.edu From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: Fwd: issue 49 - this issue is closed per Andrew's latest list Cc: yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This item is closed. Sue >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:13:21 -0400 >To: idr@merit.edu >From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> >Subject: issue 49 >Cc: zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com, yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> > > >Issue 48 indicates that we explictly define BGP message >processing. I cannot connect any specific action with >section 8.0 on the FSM. > >Without further text, I cannot process issue 49. > > >Sue Hares Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28116 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 045C091234; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C43D1912CA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF0491234 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8F3AF5DEBD; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73005DEB0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:24:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OGOBv79991 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:24:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Received: from SKHtemp.nexthop.com (216-40-174-179.livonia.tir.com [216.40.174.179]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OGO6C79984 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:24:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024121200.01dab858@mail.nexthop.com> X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:12:14 -0400 To: idr@merit.edu From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: Fwd: Issue 41 - FSM Internal Timers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I've got Andrew's last list. This issue is closed. Sue >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:38:48 -0400 >To: idr@merit.edu >From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> >Subject: Issue 41 - FSM Internal Timers >Cc: yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, >fenner@research.att.com > >In section 8.0, the text: >========== >8.0 BGP Finite State Machine > > >This section specifies the BGP operation in terms of a >Finite State Machine (FSM). The section falls into 2 >parts: > > 1) Description of Events for the State machine (section > 8.1 > 2) Description of the FSM (section 8.2) > >Session Attributes required for each connection are; > > 1) state > 2) Connect Retry timer > 3) Hold timer > 4) Hold time > 5) Keepalive timer >============ >Indicates FSM timers. Please indicate on whether these timers >in section 8.0 close issue 41. > >Sue Hares Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27394 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E521591218; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id ACE07912CA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3104B91218 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 110355DEB8; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE7A5DEAD for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:12:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OGCem19369; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210241612.g9OGCem19369@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <venug@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:35:40 +0530." <55E277B99171E041ABF5F4B1C6DDCA06B0C93D@haritha.hclt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <43024.1035475960.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:12:40 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Venu, > Hi, > It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for > same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add > this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. If you don't implement the RR spec, then *by definition* you can't recognize CLUSTER_LIST attribute (as this attribute is defined in the RR spec). And if you can't recognize the attribute, then you can't take it into account for your route selection. In other words, you either implement the RR spec (and in this case you also implement the route selection procedures specific to the RR spec), or you don't (and in this case you can't take into account various attributes defined in the RR spec). Yakov. > This is cisco's best path selection algorithm > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml > <http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml> > > Venu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM > To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily > consistant with draft > > > > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have > "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease > the migration to RR's. > > > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as > a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the > main bgp specification. > > > > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: > > > Jeff, > > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > > the resolution of it. > > > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > > in path attribute) > > 2) cluster list length > > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence > of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the > Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section > on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). > > Yakov. > > > > > _____ > > Do you Yahoo!? > Y! Web Hosting <http://webhosting.yahoo.com/> - Let the expert host your > web site > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD> > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> > > > <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002>Hi,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002> &nbs p; It > is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same destination > with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not > enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So > i feel we can add this in base spec with indication as > optional to implement. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Thi s > is cisco's best path selection algorithm</SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002> <A > href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/war p/public/459/25.shtml</A></SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Ven u > </SPAN></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN > class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original > Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> vrishab sikand > [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 > PM<BR><B>To:</B> Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas<BR><B>Cc:</B> > idr@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: missing issue - implemented route > selections not necessarily consistant with draft <BR><BR></DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE></FONT> > <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: thos e > routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "a ny" > knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the > migration to RR's. > <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not > configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these > belong in the main bgp specification. > <P> > <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: > <BLOCKQUOTE > style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" >Jeff,<BR><BR>> > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>&g t; > the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route selection tie-breaking > process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the > $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per vrisha b > sikand):<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when > present<BR>> in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list length<BR>> 3) > peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > <BR><BR>These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR> of > Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>Route > Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>on how > Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection > process).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE> > <P><BR> > <HR SIZE=1> > Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</A > - > Let the expert host your web site</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26884 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1B780912CB; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E499E912D0; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C335912CB for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 52D335DE8A; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ganesh.ctd.hctech.com (unknown [202.54.64.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C06B5DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by GANESH with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <48ZCD4A0>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:34:46 +0530 Message-ID: <55E277B99171E041ABF5F4B1C6DDCA06B0C93D@haritha.hclt.com> From: "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <venug@ctd.hcltech.com> To: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:35:40 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. This is cisco's best path selection algorithm http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml <http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml> Venu -----Original Message----- From: vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM To: Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the migration to RR's. I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the main bgp specification. Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: Jeff, > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > the resolution of it. > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > in path attribute) > 2) cluster list length > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) These are all have to do with route selection in the presence of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). Yakov. _____ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting <http://webhosting.yahoo.com/> - Let the expert host your web site ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Hi,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002> It is quiet possible that, we may receive multiple routes for same destination with varying CLUSTER list length's, even though we are not enabled ( or Implemented) RR features on a router. So i feel we can add this in base spec with indication as optional to implement. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>This is cisco's best path selection algorithm</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002> <A href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml</A></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002>Venu </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=985534615-24102002></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> vrishab sikand [mailto:v_sikand@yahoo.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:16 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Yakov Rekhter; Jeffrey Haas<BR><B>Cc:</B> idr@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft <BR><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE></FONT> <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the migration to RR's. <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the main bgp specification. <P> <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Jeff,<BR><BR>> Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>> the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand):<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present<BR>> in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list length<BR>> 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR><BR>These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR>of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> <HR SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</A> - Let the expert host your web site</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C27B77.329D9CF0-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26764 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E5E92912C9; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AD2DA912CA; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BCF912C9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 718205DE8A; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from web12802.mail.yahoo.com (web12802.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.37]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 67EDF5DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20021024160030.5085.qmail@web12802.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.246.215.128] by web12802.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:00:30 PDT Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:00:30 -0700 (PDT) From: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200210241548.g9OFmNm17574@merlot.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-927603142-1035475230=:5044" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --0-927603142-1035475230=:5044 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 2. Design Criteria Route Reflection was designed to satisfy the following criteria. o Simplicity Any alternative must be both simple to configure as well as understand. o Easy Migration It must be possible to migrate from a full mesh configuration without the need to change either topology or AS. This is an unfortunate management overhead of the technique proposed in [3]. o Compatibility It must be possible for non compliant IBGP peers to continue be part of the original AS or domain without any loss of BGP routing information. These criteria were motivated by operational experiences of a very large and topology rich network with many external connections. ******************************************************************************************* The above is the design criteria quoted from RFC 2796. They explicitly state design goal is to interoperate with non compliant IBGP neighbors. Image the case were a routers which dont support router reflector rfc (You may be tempted to say: junk it). If it is deployed in a network in which there are routers which support RR functionality. There will be inconsistent routing ************************************************************************************************** Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote:Vrishab, > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: > those rou ters which are not configured as route reflectors do not > need to have "any" kno wledge route reflector attributes. This i > think was done to ease the migration to RR's. I understand that > for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as a RR, they > perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the > main bgp specification. The point is not whether a route is *configured* to act as an RR or not. The point is whether a router *implements* the stuff specified in the RR spec or not. Yakov. > Yakov Rekhter wrote:Jeff, > > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > > the resolution of it. > > > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > > in path attribute) > > 2) cluster list length > > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence > of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the > Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section > on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). > > Yakov. > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the migrati on to RR's. > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not co nfigured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belon g in the main bgp specification. > > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote: > Jeff, > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > the resolution of it. > > Our route sele ction tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > least two of the $LA RGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand) : > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present & gt; in path attribute) > 2) cluster list length > 3) peer id (confi gured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) These are all have to do with route selection in the presence of Route Reflectors. So, these issu es have to be covered in the Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection pro cess). Yakov. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert h ost your web site > --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280-- --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site --0-927603142-1035475230=:5044 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <P>2. Design Criteria<BR><BR> Route Reflection was designed to satisfy the following criteria.<BR><BR> o Simplicity<BR><BR> Any alternative must be both simple to configure as well<BR> as understand.<BR><BR> o Easy Migration<BR><BR> It must be possible to migrate from a full mesh<BR> configuration without the need to change either topology<BR> or AS. This is an unfortunate management overhead of the<BR> technique proposed in [3].<BR><BR> o Compatibility<BR><BR> It must be possible for non compliant IBGP peers<BR> to continue be part of the original AS or domain<BR> without any loss of BGP routing information.<BR> <P>These criteria were motivated by operational experiences of a very<BR> large and topology rich network with many external connections.<BR><BR></P> <P>******************************************************************************************* <P>The above is the design criteria quoted from RFC 2796. They explicitly state design goal is to interoperate with non compliant IBGP neighbors. <P>Image the case were a routers which dont support router reflector rfc (You may be tempted to say: junk it). If it is deployed in a network in which there are routers which support RR functionality. There will be inconsistent routing</P> <P>**************************************************************************************************</P> <P> <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Vrishab,<BR><BR>> The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that:<BR>> those rou ters which are not configured as route reflectors do not<BR>> need to have "any" kno wledge route reflector attributes. This i<BR>> think was done to ease the migration to RR's. I understand that<BR>> for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as a RR, they<BR>> perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the<BR>> main bgp specification.<BR><BR>The point is not whether a route is *configured* to act as an RR or not.<BR>The point is whether a router *implements* the stuff specified in the<BR>RR spec or not.<BR><BR>Yakov.<BR><BR>> Yakov Rekhter <YAKOV@JUNIPER.NET>wrote:Jeff,<BR>> <BR>> > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>> > the resolution of it.<BR>> > <BR>> > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> > <BR>> > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand):<BR>> > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present<BR>> > in path attribute)<BR>> > 2) cluster list length<BR>> > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR>> <BR>> These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR>> of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>> Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>> on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process).<BR>> <BR>> Yakov.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ---------------------------------<BR>> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site<BR>> --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280<BR>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii<BR>> <BR>> <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those <BR>routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "any" <BR>knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the migrati<BR>on to RR's.<BR>> <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not co<BR>nfigured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belon<BR>g in the main bgp specification.<BR>> <P><BR>> <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote:<BR>> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff">Jeff,<BR><BR>> Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - <BR>or I've misplaced<BR>> the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route sele<BR>ction tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the $LA<BR>RGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand)<BR>:<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present<BR>&<BR>gt; in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list length<BR>> 3) peer id (confi<BR>gured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR><BR>These are all have to<BR>do with route selection in the presence<BR>of Route Reflectors. So, these issu<BR>es have to be covered in the<BR>Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec <BR>has to have a section<BR>on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection pro<BR>cess).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> <HR SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<BR><BR>> <A href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/">Y! Web Hosting</A> - Let the expert h<BR>ost your web site<BR>> --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280--</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</a> - Let the expert host your web site --0-927603142-1035475230=:5044-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26736 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3F052912C8; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0E608912C9; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4899912C8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3099E5DEB3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E09B5DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OG0UJ79294; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OG0PC79280; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9OG0PS18902; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:00:25 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Message-ID: <20021024120025.D18055@nexthop.com> References: <200210241533.g9OFXim16630@merlot.juniper.net> <20021024154555.88934.qmail@web12803.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021024154555.88934.qmail@web12803.mail.yahoo.com>; from v_sikand@yahoo.com on Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 08:45:55AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 08:45:55AM -0700, vrishab sikand wrote: > I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not > configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I > believe these belong in the main bgp specification. There is a difference from being a route reflector by configuration and understanding the path attributes because you have code to support it. However, this does argue that route reflectors using these extensions may have inconsitant route-selection when some of the clients don't understand the extensions. This is hardly transparent. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26414 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F05D5912C6; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B9A82912C8; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71086912C6 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:55:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 51F765DEB3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:55:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C045DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:55:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OFtTm17922; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:55:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210241555.g9OFtTm17922@merlot.juniper.net> To: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: FSM issues - first of many discussions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:28:59 EDT." <5.0.0.25.0.20021024101100.01da7258@mail.nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <37374.1035474929.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:55:29 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue, > My understanding from Andrews 10-01-2002 version of the > IDR issues, is that the following issues did not reach consensus: > > 4,8,10,11,18,19,24,32,32.1, 34, 39, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53 Just one minor correction. The most recent version of Andrew's document lists just the following issues on which there is no consensus: 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 32) Clarify EGP Reference 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 68) Outbound Loop Detection Subsequently (after Andrew posted his list) the consensus was reach on issues 11, 32, 39, 45, 53 and 68. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26097 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5030F912C5; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 68455912CB; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F00912CA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4087A5DEB1; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABEBE5DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OFlRu78785; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Received: from SKHtemp.nexthop.com (216-40-174-179.livonia.tir.com [216.40.174.179]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OFl7C78768; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024111325.033ba9b8@mail.nexthop.com> X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:23:34 -0400 To: idr@merit.edu From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: Issue 47 Cc: yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, skh@ndzh.com, fenner@research.att.com, zinin@psg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Issue 47 indicates " in most places, the actions taken on receipt of an event include what the new state will be or that it remains unchanged. But there are a significant number of places where this is not done (Eg Connect state Events 14, 15, 16]" I believe the text below indicates the state and the events. Can I consider this item closed? Sue Hares ============= The text for Connect State is below. I find Event 13,14,15 to be have this covered. Connect State: In this state, BGP is waiting for the transport protocol connection to be completed. If the transport connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], the local system checks the "Delay Open Flag". If the Delay Open flag is set, the local system: - clears the ConnectRetry timer, - set the BGP Open Delay timer to the initial value. [Action ZZ in FSM table] If the Delay Open flag is not set, the local system: - clears the ConnectRetry timer, - completes BGP initialization - send an Open message to its peer, - sets Hold timer to a large value, - Change the state to Open Sent [Action H in the FSM table] A hold timer value of 4 minutes is suggested. If the Open Delay timer expires [Event 12] in the connect state, - send an Open message to its peer, - set the Hold timer to a large value, [Action H in the FSM Table], and - change the state to Open Sent. If the BGP port receives a Transport connection indication [Event 13], the Transport connection is processed (actions AA or AB in the FSM table) and the connection remains in the connected state. If the transport connection receives an Transport indication that is invalid or unconfigured. [Event 14]: - the transport connection is rejected. [Action L in the FSM table] If the transport connection fails (timeout or transport disconnect) [Event17], the local system: - restarts the ConnectRetry timer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and [Action G in the FSM table] - changes its state to Active. If an Open is received with the BGP Delay Open timer is running [Event 19], the local system: - clears the connect retry timer (cleared to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - Stops and clears the BGP Open Delay timer - Sends an Open message [Action H in the FSM table], and - changes its state to Open Confirm. The start events [Event 1, 3-6] are ignored in connect state. A manual stop event[Event2], the local system: - drops the transport connection, - releases all BGP resources, - sets connect retry count to zero - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero) [Action Z in the FSM table] - goes to Idle state. In response to the ConnectRetry timer expired event(Event 9), the local system: - Sets the MIB FSM error information with ConnectRetry expired, - drops the transport connection - restarts the ConnectRetry timer - initiates a transport connection to the other BGP peer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and [Action O in the FSM table] - stays in Connect state. In response to any other events [Events 7-8, 10-11, 18, 20- 27] the local system: - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - drops the Transport connection, - release all BGP resources, - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1, - [optionally] performs bgp peer oscillation damping, and [Action D in the FSM table], - goes to Idle state. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26050 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A1ABF912C4; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D4419912C8; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88672912C3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6E9B35DE8F; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2FB5DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OFl5q78758; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Received: from SKHtemp.nexthop.com (216-40-174-179.livonia.tir.com [216.40.174.179]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OFkqC78723; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024103851.01da74b0@mail.nexthop.com> X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:05:15 -0400 To: idr@merit.edu From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: Issue 46 and 48 Cc: curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org, yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, fenner@research.att.com, zinin@psg.com, nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I propose putting the text suggested by issue 48 in section 8.2 after 8.2) Description of FSM 8.2.1) FSM connections (text below) 8.2.2) FSM Definition (text now in 8.2) issue 47 suggested the following text: "BGP must maintain a separate FSM for each configured peer plus Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection unless configured to remain in the idle state, or configured to remain passive, will attempt to to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussion, the active or connect side of the TCP connection (the side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listening side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called an incoming connection. [See section on the terms active and passive below.] A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. Fro each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier is not known. During this time, both an incoming and an outgoing connection for the same configured peering may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. There may be more than one connections between a pair of peers if the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" to the same peer. 8.2.1.1) Terms "active" and "passive" The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for almost a decade and have proven useful. The words active and passive have slightly different meanings applied to a TCP connection or applied to a peer. There is only one active side and one passive side to any one TCP connection per the definition above [and the state machine below.] When a BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't matter which end was active and which end was passive and the only difference is which side of the TCP connection has port number 179. In issue 46, Curtis proposed text the following text: "There is one FSM per connection. Prior to determining what peer a connection is associated with there may be two connections for a given peer. There should be no more than one connection per peer. The collision detection identifies the case where there is more than one connection per peer and provides guidances for which connection to get rid of. When this occurs, the corresponding FSM for the connection that is closed should be disposed of." I'm glad to add this text to section 8. Does it need to be added to the same section? Are there any comments on this addition? Sue Hares Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26044 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id ACE83912C3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 53416912C5; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F6B912CC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CB0745DECC; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3368A5DEC3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OFmNm17574; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210241548.g9OFmNm17574@merlot.juniper.net> To: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:45:55 PDT." <20021024154555.88934.qmail@web12803.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <35086.1035474503.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:48:23 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Vrishab, > The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: > those rou ters which are not configured as route reflectors do not > need to have "any" kno wledge route reflector attributes. This i > think was done to ease the migration to RR's. I understand that > for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as a RR, they > perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the > main bgp specification. The point is not whether a route is *configured* to act as an RR or not. The point is whether a router *implements* the stuff specified in the RR spec or not. Yakov. > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote:Jeff, > > > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > > the resolution of it. > > > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > > in path attribute) > > 2) cluster list length > > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) > > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence > of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the > Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section > on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). > > Yakov. > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > > <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the migrati on to RR's. > <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not co nfigured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belon g in the main bgp specification. > <P> > <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: > <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jeff,<BR><BR>> Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>> the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route sele ction tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the $LA RGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand) :<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present<BR>& gt; in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list length<BR>> 3) peer id (confi gured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR><BR>These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR>of Route Reflectors. So, these issu es have to be covered in the<BR>Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection pro cess).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> > <a href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</a> - Let the expert h ost your web site > --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26018 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D1DDF912CD; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A9FF1912C4; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6E4912C6 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4EF955DE8F; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0545DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OFkw978734; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Received: from SKHtemp.nexthop.com (216-40-174-179.livonia.tir.com [216.40.174.179]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OFkdC78699; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024102901.01da3b80@mail.nexthop.com> X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:38:48 -0400 To: idr@merit.edu From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: Issue 41 - FSM Internal Timers Cc: yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, fenner@research.att.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In section 8.0, the text: ========== 8.0 BGP Finite State Machine This section specifies the BGP operation in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). The section falls into 2 parts: 1) Description of Events for the State machine (section 8.1 2) Description of the FSM (section 8.2) Session Attributes required for each connection are; 1) state 2) Connect Retry timer 3) Hold timer 4) Hold time 5) Keepalive timer ============ Indicates FSM timers. Please indicate on whether these timers in section 8.0 close issue 41. Sue Hares Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26003 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E1396912CE; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 04A98912C6; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035DA912C8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D4EAB5DE35; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAFF5DE8F for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OFlA678772; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Received: from SKHtemp.nexthop.com (216-40-174-179.livonia.tir.com [216.40.174.179]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OFl0C78750; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:47:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024111153.01dab278@mail.nexthop.com> X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:13:21 -0400 To: idr@merit.edu From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: issue 49 Cc: zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com, yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Issue 48 indicates that we explictly define BGP message processing. I cannot connect any specific action with section 8.0 on the FSM. Without further text, I cannot process issue 49. Sue Hares Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25965 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:48:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2A520912C2; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DF8D5912C3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC731912C2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A55B25DEB3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97195DE8F for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OFkc778698 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Received: from SKHtemp.nexthop.com (216-40-174-179.livonia.tir.com [216.40.174.179]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OFkWC78683 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20021024101100.01da7258@mail.nexthop.com> X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:28:59 -0400 To: idr@merit.edu From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Subject: FSM issues - first of many discussions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk My understanding from Andrews 10-01-2002 version of the IDR issues, is that the following issues did not reach consensus: 4,8,10,11,18,19,24,32,32.1, 34, 39, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53 Of these issues, I believe the following are associated with the FSM portion of the specification: 41 - Mention the FSM Internal Timers 46 - FSM Connection Collision Detections 47 - FSM - Add Explicit State Changing wording 48 - Explicitly Defined Processing of Incomming Connections 49 - Explicitly Define Event Generation Please let know if any other "non-consensus" issues are related to the state machine. I would like to examine these issue to reach the consensus needed for me to re-edit the base draft wording. If you have comments associated with these issues on the BGP FSM draft (ietf-draft-hares-statmt-02.txt) or the BGP Peer Persistent Oscillation (ietf-draft-hares-backoff-01.txt). associated with these issues, please clearly state which draft you are commenting on. Sue Hares skh@nexthop.com Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25847 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:46:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8C0B7912C1; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 534B0912C2; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67BD912C1 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:45:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id BB4265DEB8; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:45:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from web12803.mail.yahoo.com (web12803.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.38]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 464845DEBF for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:45:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20021024154555.88934.qmail@web12803.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.246.215.128] by web12803.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:45:55 PDT Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:45:55 -0700 (PDT) From: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200210241533.g9OFXim16630@merlot.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the migration to RR's. I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the main bgp specification. Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote:Jeff, > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > the resolution of it. > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > in path attribute) > 2) cluster list length > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) These are all have to do with route selection in the presence of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). Yakov. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <P>The original thought expressed in the route reflector RFC was that: those routers which are not configured as route reflectors do not need to have "any" knowledge route reflector attributes. This i think was done to ease the migration to RR's. <P>I understand that for the major vendors, even if you are not configured as a RR, they perform these additional steps. So I believe these belong in the main bgp specification. <P> <P> <B><I>Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jeff,<BR><BR>> Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced<BR>> the resolution of it.<BR>> <BR>> Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at<BR>> least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs.<BR>> <BR>> Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand):<BR>> 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present<BR>> in path attribute)<BR>> 2) cluster list length<BR>> 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) <BR><BR>These are all have to do with route selection in the presence<BR>of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the<BR>Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section<BR>on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process).<BR><BR>Yakov.</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ">Y! Web Hosting</a> - Let the expert host your web site --0-1274477441-1035474355=:88280-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25409 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A0B0C912C0; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 70040912C1; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D495912C0 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0BFA35DEB3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5B35DEB1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9CLN>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:38:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A2@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'idr@merit.edu'" <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:38:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Also, are there other implementations that have this restriction? -----Original Message----- From: Natale, Jonathan Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 11:37 AM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: using default route to reach peer Folks, IOS does not allow a BGP peer to be reached via the default route. This seems like a good rule to me. Is this specified in the/a RFC/Draft somewhere? Should it be added as a "MAY"? Thank You, -Jonathan Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25356 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3BF7A912BF; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E9CB9912C0; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323DF912BF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 17C935DEB1; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83105DEAD for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT9CL1>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:01 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C5A1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: using default route to reach peer Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, IOS does not allow a BGP peer to be reached via the default route. This seems like a good rule to me. Is this specified in the/a RFC/Draft somewhere? Should it be added as a "MAY"? Thank You, -Jonathan Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25349 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DB28A912BC; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A28ED912BF; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A816912BC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6E2D35DEAF; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35235DEAD for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OFasF78223; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OFapC78215; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9OFaps18498; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:36:51 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Message-ID: <20021024113650.C18055@nexthop.com> References: <20021024105754.B18055@nexthop.com> <200210241533.g9OFXim16630@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210241533.g9OFXim16630@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 08:33:44AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 08:33:44AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > These are all have to do with route selection in the presence > of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the > Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section > on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). Thanks. That addresses my concern. Hopefully Andrew will add this to his Codex Errata for route reflectors. > Yakov. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25193 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:34:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DB1E2912BD; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A0896912BE; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA7C912BD for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 33CEE5DEB3; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A825DEAF for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9OFXim16630; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:33:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210241533.g9OFXim16630@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:57:54 EDT." <20021024105754.B18055@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <30216.1035473624.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:33:44 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced > the resolution of it. > > Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at > least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. > > Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): > 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present > in path attribute) > 2) cluster list length > 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) These are all have to do with route selection in the presence of Route Reflectors. So, these issues have to be covered in the Route Reflector spec (the Route Reflector spec has to have a section on how Route Reflectors impact BGP Route Selection process). Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23964 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A50E6912B8; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6E756912B9; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C85E912B8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 42E545DEB6; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8349F5DEB3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9OEvv976936 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:57:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OEvsC76929 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:57:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9OEvsq18350 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:57:54 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: missing issue - implemented route selections not necessarily consistant with draft Message-ID: <20021024105754.B18055@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Reviewing my inbox, I think we dropped an issue - or I've misplaced the resolution of it. Our route selection tie-breaking process in -17 doesn't match at least two of the $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDORs. Noted differences are (per vrishab sikand): 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present in path attribute) 2) cluster list length 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA22437 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:33:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5DE8891294; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:33:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2763C91295; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:33:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE2891294 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 512535DE28; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42835DE25 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9NJXMm52027; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:33:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210231933.g9NJXMm52027@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 46 - FSM Connection Collision Detection MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <38802.1035401602.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:33:22 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, [clipped...] > With the additional FSM text contained in issue 48, I think we're > mostly good here. However, given the complexity of the issue > (where is the current text - which is the canonical version, etc.) > I would like to see the text in a complete form before suggesting > we declare consensus on this. > > Yakov - what is the hope of getting a -18 candidate posted including > all consensus changes for review? I am waiting for Sue to provide me with the FSM text (Section 8) that reflects the comments we received. The rest of the comments have been incorporated already. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11030 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9E26C91281; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 53A4991284; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C5F91281 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:11:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A1D9C5DE0C; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:11:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A5B5DDA8 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:11:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT87RR>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:11:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C59D@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Issue 39 - Redundant Sentance Fragments Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:11:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk agreed (let's not belabor this trivial point) :-) -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:21 AM To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 39 - Redundant Sentance Fragments Jeff, > > 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------- > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: Redundant definitions, clarity requested. Possible solution below > > > > Discussion: > > > > 5. P. 50, section 9.1.4, The two fragments of this sentence are > > redundant and don't say anything new or simplify the content. Just > > keep one fragment. > > > > "A route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix) > > is said to be more specific than a route describing a larger set of > > destinations (a shorted prefix); similarly, a route describing a > > larger set of destinations (a shorter prefix) is said to be less > > specific than a route describing a smaller set of destinations (a > > longer prefix)." > > > > There was a comment that disagreed, thinking that both "more specific" > > and "less specific" need to be defined. And suggested that only the > > third and forth parentheses need to be dropped. > > > > The original commentor agreed with the parentheses changes. > > > > Yakov agreed to drop the third and fourth parentheses in the -18 > > version. > > > > Jonathan replied to this: > > > > Disagree, the text if fine the way it is, except you need to change > > "shorted" to "shorter". > > This sounds like consensus to me - especially if we're quibbling about > a typo. :-) Yes, indeed we have a consesus - fix the typo and drop the third and fourth parentheses. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08312 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CE1999127E; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9FE6C9127F; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF6C9127E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 468055DE20; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AE45DE1D for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9NFQL947662; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9NFQIC47655; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NFQIj13133; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:26:18 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 45 - Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions Message-ID: <20021023112618.I12849@nexthop.com> References: <20021023110629.F12849@nexthop.com> <200210231517.g9NFHum30437@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210231517.g9NFHum30437@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:17:56AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:17:56AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > If we are to use "BGP session" instead of "BGP connection", we > would talk about "Session collision" not "connection collision". > > I would prefer to use "BGP connection". I can see that. A stronger argument is perhaps the fact that our notification messages have always said "connection not synchronized". Given that implementors have often used the words from this text in their CLI/GUI/SNMP implementation, its probably best to stay with "connection". I yield to your argument. :-) > Yakov. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08019 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id EC15B9127C; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BBC5B9127D; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975FB9127C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 823AC5DE1D; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EC35DE12 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9NFKvm30669; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210231520.g9NFKvm30669@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 39 - Redundant Sentance Fragments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:04 EDT." <20021023105604.E12849@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <44547.1035386457.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:20:57 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > > 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: Redundant definitions, clarity requested. Possible solution below > > > > Discussion: > > > > 5. P. 50, section 9.1.4, The two fragments of this sentence are redundant > > and don't say anything new or simplify the content. Just keep one fragment. > > > > "A route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix) is said > > to be more specific than a route describing a larger set of destinations (a > > shorted prefix); similarly, a route describing a larger set of destinations > > (a shorter prefix) is said to be less specific than a route describing a > > smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix)." > > > > There was a comment that disagreed, thinking that both "more specific" > > and "less specific" need to be defined. And suggested that only the > > third and forth parentheses need to be dropped. > > > > The original commentor agreed with the parentheses changes. > > > > Yakov agreed to drop the third and fourth parentheses in the -18 version. > > > > Jonathan replied to this: > > > > Disagree, the text if fine the way it is, except you need to change > > "shorted" to "shorter". > > This sounds like consensus to me - especially if we're quibbling about > a typo. :-) Yes, indeed we have a consesus - fix the typo and drop the third and fourth parentheses. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07880 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A6AA89127B; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 767689127C; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBE89127B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 357475DE17; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94BC5DE12 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9NFHum30437; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210231517.g9NFHum30437@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 45 - Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:06:29 EDT." <20021023110629.F12849@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <43593.1035386276.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:17:56 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > > 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions > > In general, the cleanup is appropriate. The only change would > be agreeing with Alex: > > > "BGP session" which works over a "TCP connection" would be closer to the > > terminology we're actually using now and would avoid possible confusions > > when people read terms like "Connection collision") > > Thus, consistantly use "BGP session". > > Aside from converging on this point, I think we have reached consensus. > > Are there arguments to keep this "BGP connection"? If we are to use "BGP session" instead of "BGP connection", we would talk about "Session collision" not "connection collision". I would prefer to use "BGP connection". Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07760 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5BC189127A; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2B7819127B; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A309127A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id BEA3C5DE1D; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E975DE12 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9NFFEL47187 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9NFFBC47176 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NFFBT13085 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:15:11 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issue 46 - FSM Connection Collision Detection Message-ID: <20021023111511.H12849@nexthop.com> References: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:19PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: We need to decide which text (the original base draft, or the FSM > draft) needs to be updated to clear up this issue. There does appear to > be agreement that some clarification would be beneficial. > > Discussion: > > The original reviewer (Tom) commented that the base draft, FSM section, could > use some clarification around the area of connection collision detection. > Specifically, he argued that it seems like there are actually 2 FSM's > depending on which one backs off in the case of a collision. He > proposed this text to clear things up: > > "8 BGP FInite State Machine > > This section specifies BGP operation - between a BGP speaker and its > peer over a single TCP connection - in terms of a Finite State Machine > (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before) > > Instead of just > > "This section specifies BGP operation in terms of a Finite State > Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before). > > Curtis responded: > > There is one FSM per connection. Prior to determining what peer a > connection is associated with there may be two connections for a > given peer. There should be no more than one connection per peer. > The collision detection identifies the case where there is more > than one connection per peer and provides guidance for which > connection to get rid of. When this occurs, the corresponding FSM > for the connection that is closed should be disposed of. > > I'm not sure which document containing an FSM we should be reading at > this point, but we could add the above paragraph if we need to > explicitly state that the extra connection and its FSM is disposed of > when a collision is detected. > > When a TCP accept occurs, a connection is created and an FSM is > created. Prior to the point where the peer associated with the > connection is known the FSM cannot be associated with a peer. The > collision is a transient condition in which the rule of "one BGP > session per peer" is temporarily violated and then corrected. With the additional FSM text contained in issue 48, I think we're mostly good here. However, given the complexity of the issue (where is the current text - which is the canonical version, etc.) I would like to see the text in a complete form before suggesting we declare consensus on this. Yakov - what is the hope of getting a -18 candidate posted including all consensus changes for review? -- Jeff Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07525 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D9AB6912D8; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1605A912D2; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1969E912D9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 097885DE16; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA055DE17 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9NF6b046879 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:06:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9NF6TC46861 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:06:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NF6Tj13046 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:06:29 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issue 45 - Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions Message-ID: <20021023110629.F12849@nexthop.com> References: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:19PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions In general, the cleanup is appropriate. The only change would be agreeing with Alex: > "BGP session" which works over a "TCP connection" would be closer to the > terminology we're actually using now and would avoid possible confusions > when people read terms like "Connection collision") Thus, consistantly use "BGP session". Aside from converging on this point, I think we have reached consensus. Are there arguments to keep this "BGP connection"? -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07254 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 86A10912A1; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A640B912A4; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B4A9129E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5DDBF5DE18; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21AD5DDDC for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9NEuAu46431 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9NEu4C46417 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NEu4a13005 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:04 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issue 39 - Redundant Sentance Fragments Message-ID: <20021023105604.E12849@nexthop.com> References: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:19PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: Redundant definitions, clarity requested. Possible solution below. > > Discussion: > > 5. P. 50, section 9.1.4, The two fragments of this sentence are redundant > and don't say anything new or simplify the content. Just keep one fragment. > > "A route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix) is said > to be more specific than a route describing a larger set of destinations (a > shorted prefix); similarly, a route describing a larger set of destinations > (a shorter prefix) is said to be less specific than a route describing a > smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix)." > > There was a comment that disagreed, thinking that both "more specific" > and "less specific" need to be defined. And suggested that only the > third and forth parentheses need to be dropped. > > The original commentor agreed with the parentheses changes. > > Yakov agreed to drop the third and fourth parentheses in the -18 version. > > Jonathan replied to this: > > Disagree, the text if fine the way it is, except you need to change > "shorted" to "shorter". This sounds like consensus to me - especially if we're quibbling about a typo. :-) -- Jeff Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07109 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 03B8091299; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9CCB1912A1; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4171391299 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 300C55DE1F; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E5E5DE18 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9NEu4m28970; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:56:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210231456.g9NEu4m28970@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 68 - outbound loop detection In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:43 EDT." <20021023103443.A12849@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <36573.1035384964.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:56:04 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: IFF we have two implementations, we'd consider including this in > > the base spec. > > > > Discussion: > > > > Jonathan brought up that: > > > > This paper (thanks Jeff) > > Since my name is brought up, I thought I'd offer an opinion. :-) > > > http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2000-0 > > indicates that it > > is better to do the loop detection outbound as well inbound. The current > > draft indicates that > > it only needs to be done inbound. IOS does it inbound as well as outbound. > > GateD/Juniper > > does it (did it ???) only inbound. > > > > So I propose we add: > > "An implementation MAY choose to not advertise routes to EBGP peers if these > > routes contain > > the AS of that peer in the AS path." > > after: > > "If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be > > stored in the > > Adj-RIB In, but unless the router is configured to accept routes with its > > own AS in the > > AS path, the route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." > > > > *If there is at least one other implementation that does outbound > > pruning/loop-detection.* > > My suggestion is that this can stay out of the base draft. While it > is true that this speeds up convergence (per the paper), it doesn't > affect interoperability. > > Also, adding this specifically removes the ability from several > implementations to be able to bridge a partitioned AS by permitting > loops. (I'm not going to argue whether this is a Good way to do this, > just that its done.) > > Its also worth noting that one could produce the same resultant speed-up > by detecting the loop on an outbound basis and *not* applying the > min*timers to the UPDATE. Thus, this would be a case of an advertisement > of NLRI being treated the same, timer-wise, as the advertisement of > WD_NLRI. > > I would suggest moving this suggestion for outbound loop detection > in one form or another to the 1772 replacement. Agreed. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06709 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2479A91291; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E00F791296; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C83991291 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 495335DE1C; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85355DE07 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9NEtAm28933; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:55:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210231455.g9NEtAm28933@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 32 - Clarify EGP Reference In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:41 EDT." <20021023104241.B12849@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <36295.1035384910.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:55:10 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 32) Clarify EGP Reference > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > I'd like to propose that all of the issues here have been addressed > by 32.1 and we close this one. > > If others disagree, could you note what your perception of remaining > issues are? Agreed. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06680 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4B0199128F; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 15C9B91290; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:54:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0229128F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2918F5DE18; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC305DDDC for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9NEsTm28894; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:54:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210231454.g9NEsTm28894@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 11 - Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:26 EDT." <20021023104726.C12849@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <36045.1035384869.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:54:29 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > > I would rephrase the paragraph as follows => > > > > "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, > > replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being > > held in the Loc-RIB. When the new BGP route is installed in the Routing > > Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to the same > > destination that are now considered invalid are removed from the > > Routing Table. Whether or not the new BGP route replaces an existing > > non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured > > on the BGP speaker." > > With the exception that Routing Table should be capitalized throughout, > I'd suggest we take this as consensus. Agreed. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06543 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:57:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 34C7191285; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C36BD91283; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6539B91287 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7BC495DE12; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3FB5DDDC for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9NEred46244 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9NErbC46237 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NErbt12982 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:53:37 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issue 48 - Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections Message-ID: <20021023105337.D12849@nexthop.com> References: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:19PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Curtis later proposed this text: Most of which I'm in violent agreement with. :-) > You're correct in that you must have a collision of IP addresses on > the TCP connections and that the BGP Identifier is used only to > resolve which gets dropped. Its important to note that BGP Identifier is only important if the rest of the Open is valid. For example, we must first get past AS number, hold time values, capabilities, etc. > The FSM stays around as long as "BGP Identifier" is not known. Or may be immediately aborted if the rest of the OPEN is rejected. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06221 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1E20E91278; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 815BC9127A; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2B891276 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9CAF45DE12; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28945DE0B for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9NElTG46052 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9NElQC46045 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NElQs12964 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:26 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issue 11 - Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 Message-ID: <20021023104726.C12849@nexthop.com> References: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:19PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > I would rephrase the paragraph as follows => > > "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, > replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being > held in the Loc-RIB. When the new BGP route is installed in the Routing > Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to the same > destination that are now considered invalid are removed from the > Routing Table. Whether or not the new BGP route replaces an existing > non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured > on the BGP speaker." With the exception that Routing Table should be capitalized throughout, I'd suggest we take this as consensus. -- Jeff Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06216 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DFF1891276; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 79BB69127C; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B0291278 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B92085DE18; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from cmr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net (cmr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net [198.5.241.39]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F965DE12 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cmr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net by cmr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: localhost [127.0.0.1]) id QQnlvf18060 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:47:44 GMT Received: from csserve0.corp.us.uu.net by cmr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: csserve0.corp.us.uu.net [153.39.88.140]) id QQnlvf18049; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:47:44 GMT Received: from localhost by csserve0.corp.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: dbarak@localhost) id QQnlvf08774; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: David Barak <dbarak@UU.NET> X-Sender: dbarak@csserve0.corp.us.uu.net To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 32 - Clarify EGP Reference In-Reply-To: <20021023104241.B12849@nexthop.com> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0210231047390.17670-100000@csserve0.corp.us.uu.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk agreed. David Barak WorldCom Voice: +1-703-886-5500 Fax: +1-703-886-0541 "Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?" - Juvenal ===== Fully RFC 1925 compliant ===== On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 32) Clarify EGP Reference > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'd like to propose that all of the issues here have been addressed > by 32.1 and we close this one. > > If others disagree, could you note what your perception of remaining > issues are? > > -- Jeff > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05764 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:43:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AAE4B91272; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 789BA91274; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C86691272 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 528C65DE0B; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C575DE0E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9NEgi145931 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9NEgfC45924 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NEgfa12941 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:42:41 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issue 32 - Clarify EGP Reference Message-ID: <20021023104241.B12849@nexthop.com> References: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:19PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 32) Clarify EGP Reference > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to propose that all of the issues here have been addressed by 32.1 and we close this one. If others disagree, could you note what your perception of remaining issues are? -- Jeff Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05385 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id ECBF091271; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B241791285; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FE591271 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0ED8D5DDDC; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B275DE12 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9NEYlT45713 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9NEYiC45706 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9NEYhw12908 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:34:43 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issue 68 - outbound loop detection Message-ID: <20021023103443.A12849@nexthop.com> References: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:19PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:19PM -0700, andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net wrote: > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: IFF we have two implementations, we'd consider including this in > the base spec. > > Discussion: > > Jonathan brought up that: > > This paper (thanks Jeff) Since my name is brought up, I thought I'd offer an opinion. :-) > http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2000-08 > indicates that it > is better to do the loop detection outbound as well inbound. The current > draft indicates that > it only needs to be done inbound. IOS does it inbound as well as outbound. > GateD/Juniper > does it (did it ???) only inbound. > > So I propose we add: > "An implementation MAY choose to not advertise routes to EBGP peers if these > routes contain > the AS of that peer in the AS path." > after: > "If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be > stored in the > Adj-RIB In, but unless the router is configured to accept routes with its > own AS in the > AS path, the route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." > > *If there is at least one other implementation that does outbound > pruning/loop-detection.* My suggestion is that this can stay out of the base draft. While it is true that this speeds up convergence (per the paper), it doesn't affect interoperability. Also, adding this specifically removes the ability from several implementations to be able to bridge a partitioned AS by permitting loops. (I'm not going to argue whether this is a Good way to do this, just that its done.) Its also worth noting that one could produce the same resultant speed-up by detecting the loop on an outbound basis and *not* applying the min*timers to the UPDATE. Thus, this would be a case of an advertisement of NLRI being treated the same, timer-wise, as the advertisement of WD_NLRI. I would suggest moving this suggestion for outbound loop detection in one form or another to the 1772 replacement. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA22709 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B38BB9125C; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 56A109125D; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69909125C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:05:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A973F5DD8D; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:05:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8DE5DD8C for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA05148 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 19:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 19:02:19 -0700 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: idr@merit.edu Subject: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v1.4 Message-ID: <20021022190219.H15049@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hello all, This is the 1.4 edition of the issues document. Since the 1.3 edition we have: Added 1 issue. Added a list of to-do documents (Appendix A) Updated 10 issues. Moved the same 10 issues to consensus. We have only 8 issues outstanding, and we're close on some of them. Time to take a deep breath and plow on through, we're almost there! Andrew --z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue_List-v1.4.txt" 2002-10-22 v1.4 Since late August 2002, there has been a push to get any and all issues with the base spec. resolved so the IDR group can move this draft forward to the IESG. This is a list of the issues that have been brought up regarding the base draft, and the current working group consensus on them. All mistakes are mine, please email me at andrewl@cw.net with corrections. Please include the number and the title of the issue in the subject lines of email discussing that issue. It will help in keeping track. N.B. There is no rhyme or reason to the numbering scheme other than unique tags to address the issues. ============================================================================ Table of Contents ============================================================================ 1) IDR WG Charter 2) TCP Port 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID 5) Direct EBGP Peers 6) Disallow Private Addresses 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 12) TCP Behavior Wording 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer 15) Grammer Fix 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 18) IP Layer Fragmentation 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 34) Timer & Counter Definition 35) Fix Typo 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 42) Delete the FSM Section 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 50) FSM Timers 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 64) MED for Originated Routes 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* 68) Outbound Loop Detection ============================================================================ Issues with Consensus ============================================================================ 1) IDR WG Charter 2) TCP Port 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID 5) Direct EBGP Peers 6) Disallow Private Addresses 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 12) TCP Behavior Wording 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer (closed in favor of issue 61) 15) Grammer Fix 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 18) IP Layer Fragmentation 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 34) Timer & Counter Definition 35) Fix Typo 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 42) Delete the FSM Section 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 50) FSM Timers 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 64) MED for Originated Routes 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ============================================================================ Issues WITHOUT Consensus ============================================================================ 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 32) Clarify EGP Reference 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 68) Outbound Loop Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) IDR WG Charter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: New charter adopted. Discussion: A variety of discussions surrounded the new charter. The rough consensus is to accept the new charter that the AD's have proposed, and to push as hard a possible to get the base spec to RFC status so other drafts that are dependent can also move forward. This thread has messages subjects of "BGP spec and IDR WG charter" and "IDR WG charter". For our information, Alex has provided these aproximate timelines: Stage Anticipated delay Comment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD-review 1--4 weeks The document may go back to the depending on workload WG for the AD-review comments to be addressed; this would introduce additional delay. IETF LC 2 weeks Same as above IESG review& 1--2 weeks depending Same as above telechat on when the IETF LC ends ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that if the document is sent back to the WG at some stage, required changes may warrant an additional WG Last Call. I can personally commit to a 2-week upper bound for the AD-review period. Bill may have a different timer granularity. The opinions expressed on this were 7 in favor, 4 against. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) TCP Port ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change: "BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections." To: "BGP listens on TCP port 179." Discussion: There has been a discussion on clarifying the wording in Section 2, on which port BGP uses. The original text was: "BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections." The proposed new text is: "BGP listens on TCP port 179." There seems to be a rough consensus that the new text is better. This thread has a message subject of "Review: Section 2, TCP Port 179" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary Discussion: An issue was brought up later in the "Review: Section 2, TCP Port 179" thread about the words in the FSM for what state BGP accepts connections in. The consensus is that the existing wording is clear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary to base draft. Perhaps in a BCP. Discussion: The "admin dist/gp spec proposal", "Router ID" and "bgp spec proposal" threads discussed the BGP Identifier and how close or not it is to IGP's Router ID. The consensus was that this discussion is better saved for a BCP draft, and that it does not need to be contained in the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Direct EBGP Peers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: A recollection that ebgp peers must be direct. No text proposed, no discussion. Discussion: Jonathan recalled something that stated that ebgp peers must be direct. No specific sections were quoted. Yakov responded to this with: Section 5.1.3 talks about both the case where ebgp peers are 1 IP hop away from each other: 2) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is one IP hop away from the speaker: as well as the case where they are multiple IP hops away from each other: 3) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is multiple IP hops away from the speaker (aka "multihop EBGP"): And emphasized that multihop EBGP does exist. This came up in the "bgp draft review" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Disallow Private Addresses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": Mentioned explicitly disallowing private addresses. The consensus was that there is no reason to disallow them. Which IP addresses peers use is an operational issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Renumber Appendix Sections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Rename/renumber appendix sections so they do not have the same numbers as sections of the main text. Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": This thread brought up renaming sections in the appendix to avoid confusion with sections of the same number in the main text. Yakov responded that he would do so in the next edition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Jitter Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Get rid of section 9.2.1.3 ("Jitter"). Move the text to an Appendix: "BGP Timers" Expand text to indicate that jitter applies to all timers, including ConnectRetry. The text for the appendix is listed at the end of the discussion. Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": The thread also proposed: "jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval" Be changed to: "jitter should be applied to the timers associated with ConnectRetry timer" Yakov agreed with making some changes and suggested that we make sure that jitter is applied to all timers. Specifically, he proposes we get rid of section 9.2.1.3 ("Jitter"), move the text of this section into Appendix "BGP Timers", and expand the text to indicate that jitter applies to ConnectRetry timer as well. Jonathan, the original commentor, agreed with Yakov's suggestion. In a follow-up to this issue, there was a question raised about the values we have specified for timers in the document. Specifically: The ConnectRetry timer is should have a value that is 'sufficiently large to allow TCP initialization. Application of jitter can reduce the this value (by up to 25%). A configuration which the ConnectRetry timer has been pegged at a value close to TCP connection time may cause a connection to be terminated as a result of this jitter. Is this a cause for concern ? The default value suggested for ConnectRetry (120 seconds) is sufficiently large that event with a jitter of 0.75, it will be greater than TCP'c connection establishment timer. Is adding a jitter to the ConnectRetry timer a standard practice ? What benefit does this provide ? Curtis responded to this with: The TCP connection establishment timer is 75 seconds (sysctl yield "net.inet.tcp.keepinit: 75000" in BSD-oids). The ConnectRetry determines when to make a second attempt after a prior attempt to connect has failed. It is to avoid a rapid succession of retries on immediate failures (for example "Connection refused" if the peer was in the middle of a reboot, Network Unreachable if you can't get there from here, etc) but also covers the case where the TCP SYN goes off and is never heard from again. And Jonathan replied with this information about current practice: It seems to me that if you bring up all bgp peers at once it may lead to load spikes on the network. Cisco seems to wait 27.5 +/- 2.5 seconds for IBGP, and 40 +/- 5 seconds for EBGP--20 sec. from config time to the "open active, delay" jittered delay assignment plus the jittered delay (5 to 10 sec. for IBGP, and 15 to 25 sec. for EBGP). This would also apply for "no neighbor x.x.x.x shutdown". Their value of ConnectRetry is 60sec. though, not sure how this value is used (based on above). Maybe some Cisco folks can chime in on this one??? I did not check Juniper. Also, interestingly, they do not apply jitter to the other timers (as far as I can tell), but I don't see a problem with this. Another timer that they use that is not mentioned in the draft/rfc is the next hop resolution timer which is 30 seconds. Although it would be nice to have this in the spec, I will concede that it is out of scope and/or implementation dependent. So the question that arises from this followup, is how does this question affect the text of the appendix on jitter? Curtis replied that we need to only state that jitter should be applied to all timers. Whether a vendor does so or not is a minor deficiency and does not bear on interoperability. Therefore, specifying exact details are not necessary. After Jonathan's response Curtis and Jonathan agreed that jitter should be added to all timers and that we should state so in the text. Yakov proposed the following text for the appendix to discuss jitter: I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker shall apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter will not be applied on a "per peer" basis. The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. Jeff & Ben agreed with this. Justin suggested that we move the range from 0.75 to 1.25 to ensure that the average is around the configured value. Yakov agreed with Justin's changes. Jonathan disagreed, arguing that it was out-of-scope for the task of clarifying the text only. Justin agreed and withdrew his comment. Curtis liked the general text, but suggested these modifications: minor improvement (not really an objection) -- s/suggested value/suggested default value/g Also s/shall apply the same jitter/may apply the same jitter/ (to each of these quantities regardless of ...). s/jitter will not be applied/jitter need not be configured/ (on a "per peer" basis). He stated that in Avici's implementation they allow a lot of granularity in timer settings, so this reflects current practice. Curtis also suggested changing the last paragraph: The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. This would make it clear that it is possible to have this timer as configurable and still be within spec. Other comments on Yakov's text pointed out that IOS uses 5 seconds as the default IBGP MinRouteAdvertisementInterval. Tom pointed out that there seems to be a discrepency between this text and the FSM: The FSM has an OpenDelay timer. And the FSM suggests a HoldTimer of 4 minutes. In following up on this issue, Yakov stated: Here is the final text for the BGP Timers section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested default value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested default value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested default value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested default value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested default value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker may apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per peer" basis. The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. Jonathan suggested adding "per peer" to the text, Yakov responded with this text: An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable on a per peer basis, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. This proposal met with general agreement. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add a reference to RFC904 Discussion: The "Review Comment: Origin Attribute pg 14" thread suggested adding a reference to RFC904(?), to refer to the EGP protocol. There was no discussion. Yakov agreed to this, and Jonathan seconded it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add this to 9.2: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and may choose to log an error locally. Discussion: The "Extending AS_PATH attribute length en route" thread brought up the issue of what action should we specify when we receive a route with an AS_PATH that exceeds the defined maximum length. There was some discussion, and it was suggested that, after logging the error, the route not be propegated. Yakov stated that: The real issue here is how to handle the case when a route (a single address prefix + path attributes) doesn't fit into 4K bytes (as the max BGP message size is 4 K). To address this issue I would suggest to add the following to 9.2: After some discussion, Yakov's proposed text's last sentance was dropped and we arrived at: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker may choose not to advertise the route to its peers. In response to Andrew's clarification question to the list, Curtis responded: Wording would be more like: If the attributes for a specific prefix becomes too large to fit the prefix into the maximum sized BGP UPDATE message, the prefix should not be advertised further. Truncation or ommision of attributes should not occur unless policies for such modifications are specifically configured. Such policies may contribute to the formation of route loops and are not within the scope of this protocol specification. After some additional discussion, it was decided that we add "and may choose to log an error locally." to the end of Yakov's text. Also, we agreed to change "may choose not to advertize..." to "MUST NOT advertise...". So the text on the table right now is: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and may choose to log an error locally. This met with one agreement and no disagreements. We have a consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Variety of texts proposed to help clear up the rules for moving routes from Loc-RIB into Adj-RIB-Out. Discussion: The "Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3" thread brought up some lack of clarity in the section discussing the rules for which routes get propegated from the Loc-RIB into the Adj-RIB-Out. These discussions resulted in a number of suggestions for new text. The first new text was proposed to clarify the issue that the thread first brought up: I agree that this could use some clarification. How about adding to b) in section 9.1: The Loc-RIB must contain only one route per destination; further, it must include all routes that the BGP speaker is using. changing c) in section 9.1.2 to: c) is selected as a result of the Phase 2 tie breaking rules specified in 9.1.2.2, or and adding d) when routing protocols other than BGP are in use, is determined by some other local means to be the route that will actually be used to reach a particular destination. This text was never discussed or a consensus formed on putting it in the document. This modification to 9.1.2 was also proposed to address the same concern: How about changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 to: The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. This route SHALL then also be installed in the BGP speakers forwarding table. There was one response in the negative to this change, arguing that is is not necessary. Yakov replied to this that: Wrt "adding to b) in section 9.1", the second part (after ";") is redundant as this point is already stated in 3.2. Wrt the first point about Loc-RIB containing just one route per destination, I would suggest to add it to section 3.2, where Loc-RIB is first introduced, rather than adding it to 9.1. Wrt "changing c)... and adding...", I have no objections to add/modify the text, as suggested above. I am not sure though that changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 is really necessary though, so I would prefer to keep it as is. The "issue 11" thread this was being discussed in then digressed to the topic, now covered in issue 11.3. Ben readdressed the original issue with this input: I have somewhat of an issue with the paragraph after item c section 9.1.2 as discussed. which is => "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. If the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table (as a result of the local policy decision), care must be taken to ensure that invalid BGP routes to the same destination are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new route replaces an already existing non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker." Can we assume that its OK to have a route present in the Loc-RIB and possibly in the adj-RIB-Out but not in the Routing table due to some policy. Won't we violate rule number 1? Only advertise what you use. As conversly implied in this sentence => "If the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table (as a result of the local policy decision), care must be taken to ensure that invalid BGP routes to the same destination are removed from the Routing Table" I would rephrase the paragraph as follows => "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. When the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to the same destination that are now considered invalid are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new BGP route replaces an existing non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker." Ben's comment has not yet received a reponse. We are still working on consensus on this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: The text below will be added to the -18 version. Discussion: In further discussions around this issue, this text was also proposed: How about adding to section 9.1.3, at the end: Any local-policy which results in reachability being added to an Adj-RIB-Out without also being added to the local BGP speaker's forwarding table is beyond the scope of this document. This suggestion received one response that agreed to this change. This text will be added to the -18 version, and since there were no objections, this issue has been moved to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add this text: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. Discussion: Additionally this thread produced this section of new text, in section 2: <OLD> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." Should be changed to <NEW #1> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only routes whose NLRIs are locally reachable." <NEW #2> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only routes which are locally reachable. Local reachability can be achieved by having any protocol route to the given destination in the routing table." There were a lot of emails exchanged on this topic with a variety of texts proposed (see early in the "Active Route" thread). This issue reopend with Jonathan, who brought up the issue originally, stating that: The issue I raised, and would like to be [re-]considered is with: "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." Curtis replied that: That is called route orgination and it is allowed by: 9.4 Originating BGP routes A BGP speaker may originate BGP routes by injecting routing information acquired by some other means (e.g. via an IGP) into BGP. [...] The decision whether to distribute non-BGP acquired routes within an AS via BGP or not depends on the environment within the AS (e.g. type of IGP) and should be controlled via configuration. Advice on what to put in the AS_PATH and NEXT_HOP is in the document. He continued with: I don't think there was ever consensus on what to do with the statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses". Some reasonable choices are: 1. Omit it (the implied consensus of the rewrite of the paragraph in 32.2). 2. Leave it as is and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. 3. Clean up the wording and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. The separate paragraph for 2 would be the exact sentence we now have. A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. In possibility 3 we (try to) clear up the ambiguity about the meaning of the word "use" in this sentence. A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. In this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is either directly used in forwarding or in a specifically configured case where the BGP route would be forwarded internally but IGP forwarding information is used. The latter case reflects a usage in which the IGP is used for forwarding but BGP is originated to IBGP to carry attributes that cannot be carried by the IGP (for example, BGP communities [N]). Other special cases such as virtual routers and multiple instances of BGP on a single router are beyond the scope of this document but for each of these the statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses" can (and should in the definition of the extension) be made true with an appropriate definition of the word "use". Unless someone volunteers better wording this may be a good starting point. I thing the last sentence borders on ridiculous in a protocol spec but may be necessary to address specific objections raised on this mailing list. If we want to elaborate on the meaning of the word "use" and address the objections this is what we end up with. Of course looking at what we ended up with, I'd also go along with the other two options (leave it out or put the one sentence in a separate paragraph as is). After some additional discussion (in the "issue 11.2" thread), we have come to a consensus on this text: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: The documenting of IBGP Multipath is left to another Internet Draft. The consensus is that it should not be in the base spec. Discussion: This thread began in the "issue 11" discussion. In it it was proposed that: There is support in some router vendors to allow more than one BGP route to be installed, for the purpose for load balancing. Given that this is a current practice, and seems to be a useful feature as well, should we insist that only one route be installed in the Loc-RIB ? I would like to suggest that all sections which use MUST in the context of only one route in Loc-RIB be relaxed a little to a SHOULD, and a section added that states that it is possible for a n implementation to add more than one route to the Loc-RIB for the purposes of load balancing. While it will be useful to describe how this situation is the handler, it is perhaps sufficient to even state that handling of this situation is outside the scope of this RFC. I am including some proposed text for this purpose: For the part: > The Loc-RIB must contain only one route per destination; consider instead, % The Loc-RIB SHOULD contain only one route per destination. % An implementation may choose to install multiple routes to % a destination (for the purposes of load balancing). The % handling of such a configuration, however, is outside the % scope of this RFC. Perhaps, this can be in section 3.2 instead. After much discussion back and forth, it was agreed that documenting IBGP Multipath behavior is a good thing. However, it is something that belongs in another draft. Alex opened this issue up again. There were a flury of responses, most all of them agreeing with the original consensus that we should document this feature in a different draft, since it doesn't affect the core interoperatbilty requirements, and we want to advance the spec in a timely manner. Alex persisted in his assertion that this belongs in the base specification. Right now, the issue is still open. This discussion later expanded in scope to include all BGP multipath. Curtis laid out a good description of the various flavors of multipath: In addition to IGP multihop, there are two cases of BGP multipath. In IGP multihop there is one BGP advertisement but to ways to reach th BGP NEXT_HOP via the IGP. In one case of BGP multihop, two (or more) IBGP routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a destination and are an equal cost away from a third router. BGP multihop is applicable to that third router. Without BGP multihop, BGP would normally pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP Identifier) and use that. The IGP lookup would yield one next hop. With BGP multihop, BGP uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of both advertisements. Each BGP NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop). The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP multipath are external. Seldom does IGP multipath come into play for EBGP (odd tunneled EBGP mutlihop cases maybe). Typically the load is split among two (or more) routers in the same AS. If in EBGP multipath you split among routers in difference AS, an aggregate should be formed. This is still prior to the IGP cost rule in the route selection. Normally one would not combine IBGP and EBGP in multihop given that the decsion point for multihop is after "d" in 9.1.2.2. If the multihop decision was prior to "d", then two routers each with an external peering would forward some of the traffic to each other and for some src/dst pairs, they'd form a loop. [So don't do that!] This is getting to be a lot to add to the base spec. I hope we've convinced you that we should put it in another document. Curtis later added specific text, that could serve as a start for the new document (or added to the base spec if the consensus ended up going the other way): BGP specifies how to select the single best route. OSPF specifically defines procedures for handling equal cost multipath (ECMP) [cite OSPF]. The same technique has been applied to ISIS. A similar technique has been used with BGP. Variations exist but the decision to support BGP multipath, the specific variation of BGP multipath, or not to support it, does not affect interoperability. A naive implementations of ECMP can cause severe performance degradation for TCP flows. To avoid this, implementations of BGP multipath SHOULD maintain packet ordering within microflows as described in [cite rfc2991, rfc2992]. BGP multipath, if implemented, SHOULD be disabled by default. In addition to IGP multipath (OSPF ECMP and ISIS equivalent), there are two variations of BGP multipath described here. A BGP implementation may offer both, either one, or neither variation of BGP multipath. Other variations of BGP multipath may exist, but no guarantees can be made in this protocol specification of their properties or impact on interoperability. Where IGP multipath is used, there is an interaction with BGP learned routes. The lookup of a BGP NEXT_HOP in the IGP can result in the selection of an IGP multipath entry. This is not a variation of BGP multipath. When this occurs, one BGP route is slected as the best but there is more than one way to reach the BGP NEXT_HOP via the IGP. In one variation of BGP multipath, a set of more than one IBGP routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a destination and are an equal IGP cost away from a second set of one or more routers. BGP multipath is applicable to the latter set of routers. Without BGP multipath, BGP would pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP Identifier) and use only that BGP route. With BGP multipath, BGP uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of more than one of these equal cost advertisements, yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Each BGP NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop if IGP multipath is in use). The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP multipath are external and learned by a single BGP peer. Without BGP multipath this peer would select only one of the BGP routes and obtain only one BGP NEXT_HOP. With BGP multipath, more than one equal cost route is selected yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Seldom does IGP multipath come into play when looking up an EBGP NEXT_HOP but could in principle be applicable. If in EBGP multipath traffic is split among routers in difference AS, an aggregate SHOULD be formed so as to propogate a route with an accurate AS_PATH. If the resulting aggregate is not more specific than the components, the AS_SET SHOULD NOT be dropped. The decsion point for multipath is after step "d" in Section 9.1.2.2 (prefer externally learned routes). IBGP learned and EBGP learned routes MUST NOT be combined in multipath. If the multipath decision is prior to "d", then two routers each with an external peering would form a routing loop. The decision point for multipath is generally after step "e" in Section 9.1.2.2. Some relaxation of the "equal cost" rule (also applicable to IGP multipath) is possible. In addition to the equal cost BGP NEXT_HOPS available at BGP route selection, if the IGP next hop for other BGP NEXT_HOPs are of lower cost, then those may be used as well. This relaxation of the step "e" is possible but is not widely implemented (and may not be implemented at all). The consensus of the majority of the IDR WG is to keep this in a seperate draft and out of the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) TCP Behavior Wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: In issue 19 we decided to remove this section entirely. As a result the previous consensus on this issue (no change) is renderd moot. Discussion: The subjectless "your mail" thread discussed a wording clarification from: "An implementation that would "hang" the routing information process while trying to read from a peer could set up a message buffer (4096 bytes) per peer and fill it with data as available until a complete message has been received. " To something that is more TCP-correct, such as: "An implementation that would "hang" the routing information process while trying to received from a peer could set up a message buffer (4096 bytes) per peer and fill it with data as available until a complete message has been received. " (only change: "read" to "received" This was one of a couple of suggested changes.) This suggestion was quite contentious, and although there were a variety of alternate texts proposed, the only consensus was that this was a very minor issue, and probably not worth changing. In issue 19 we decided to remove this section entirely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) Next Hop for Originated Route ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No reponses, assumed consensus to keep things the same. Discussion: There was a one-message thread entitled "next hop for originated route". This message received no reponse, so the assumption is that there is a consensus to keep things as they are. For related discussion see issue 61. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Closed in favor of issue 61. Discussion: The thread entitled "NEXT_HOP to internal peer" starts with this question: When sending a locally originated route to an internal peer, what should NEXT_HOP be set to? One response suggested that we add a line stating that the NEXT_HOP address originates from the IGP. Since this issue and issue 61 are basically the same, except 61 proposes text, we'll close this issue in favor of 61. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) Grammer Fix ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change: "The Prefix field contains IP address prefixes ..." To: "contains an IP address prefix ..." Discussion: The thread entitled "Review comment: bottom of page 16" corrects a grammer mistake by suggesting we change: "The Prefix field contains IP address prefixes ..." to: "contains an IP address prefix ..." Yakov responded that this will be fixed in -18. The consensus seems to be to correct this, and go with the new text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Need to add a Table of Contents (ToC), Glossary and Index to the draft. Will be added in draft -18. Discussion: The "Review Comments: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" thread suggests: 1. Document needs, Table of Contents, Glossary, and Index 2. Paths, Routes, and Prefixes need to be defined in the spec early on (like in a glossary), so it is obvious what is implied. Yakov responded that draft -18 will have a ToC and definition of commonly used terms. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add references to other RFC-status BGP docs to the base spec. Discussion: The "Review Comments: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" thread then changes titles to: "Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" and goes on to suggest: 3. All BGP Extensions described in other documents that made it to RFC status should be at least referenced in the Reference section P.64. This is justifiable since it's the core BGP standard spec. Yakov responded that this will be added to the -18 review. Jonathan agreed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) IP Layer Fragmentation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No need to mention IP Layer Fragmentation in the BGP specification, since this is taken care of at the TCP level. Discussion: 1. P.6 section 4. Message Formats, its possible for the source BGP peer IP layer to fragment a message such that the receiving BGP peer socket layer would have to reassemble it. Need to mention this, since BGP implementations are required to do this. The response to this was that, while true, reassembly is something that is inherent in the TCP layer that BGP rides over. Therefore, this is something that is in the TCP spec, and needn't be repeated in the BGP spec. This comment was reaffirmed. There seems to be consensus that this isn't something that needs to be in the BGP spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Remove the section entirely, as this is something that does not belong in the base spec. Discussion: This first came up in reponse to Issue 17: There was one comment suggesting that section 6.2 (Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol" mentioned this. The original reviewer reponsed that the out-of-scope comment was out-of-place and refered the reponder to section 6.2 (appendix 6) The original reviewer stated that he is happy with just adding a reference to section 6.2 in appendix 6 and leaving it at that. Curtis suggested we just add a reference to Stevens in appendix 6. 6.2 and be done with it. Specifically: 6.2 Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol BGP uses TCP as a transport mechanism. If you are unsure as to how to handle asynchronous reads and writes on TCP sockets please refer to Unix Network Programming [RWStevens] or other introductory text for programming techniques for the operating system and TCP implementation that you are using. There were further suggestions to remove the section entirely as out-of-scope. At least 3 people agreed with this. Alex responded that he sees no reason to remove it, but wouldn't have a problem if the WG decides to do so. There seems to be general agreement that this section should be removed. N.B. This also affects issue 12. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: A small change for clarity in section 4.3 Discussion: This suggestion grew out of the discussion on Issue 18. The following change was suggested in section 4.3, second line of the first paragraph: s/UPDATE packet/UPDATE message/ Yakov agreed to this change and updated the draft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) Authentication Text Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that additional references to RFC2385 are not necessary. Discussion: P. 10, "Authentication Data:" section you might want to add this, It is also possible to use MD5 (RFC2385) at the transport layer to validate the entire BGP message. Yakov replied to this: There is already text that covers this: "Any authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms." .... "In addition, BGP supports the ability to authenticate its data stream by using [RFC2385]." So, I see no need to add the text proposed above. Ishi agreed with Yakov. Jonathan disagreed since he thought no one uses BGP auth. Ishi replied that there are lots of people who do use it. Jonathan replied with a clarification question: "Who uses *BGP's own* authentication mechanisms???" Ron Bonica replied that they use BGP auth. There was some additional discussion over who implements simple password authentication vs. MD5. After further discussion, the consensus seems to be that we should leave the text as it is for the reasons Yakov pointed out. There was some discussion over opening a new issue to discuss deprecating the BGP auth mechanism discussed in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism in RFC2385. The issue of Depricating BGP AUTH is discussed in issue 62. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: This is already being covered by text that has been added to the -18 draft. Discussion: P. 12, right after "Path Attributes". The following sentence should be added to this section to clarify the scope of the Path Attribute field. "All attributes in the Path Attribute field represent the characteristics of all the route prefixes defined in the NLRI field of the message". Yakov replied to this that: This will be covered by the following text in 3.1 that will be in the -18 version (see also issue 54). Routes are advertised between BGP speakers in UPDATE messages. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Therefore there is no need to add the sentence proposed above. There were no objections to this statement, so this issue has been moved into consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: For various reasons, not least of which is compatability with existing implementaions, the decision was made to keep thing the way they are. Discussion: 4. P.16, last paragraph in section 4.3 as stated, "An UPDATE message should not include the same address prefix in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields, however a BGP speaker MUST be able to process UPDATE messages in this form. A BGP speaker should treat an UPDATE message of this form as if the WITHDRAWN ROUTES doesn't contain the address prefix." This complexity could have been avoided if withdrawn routes and NRLI prefixes with their attributes were mutually exclusive of each other and appeared in different update messages. If that was the case, the priority of which field to process first would have been as simple as using "first come, first served" message processing approach. Yakov commented that this would make the case where they are both in the same message unspecified. John commented that this is something we don't want to change this late in the game. Although it was acknowledged that this might be a good change if we were working from a clean slate. Ben acceeded that this was somewhat wishful thinking on his part. Curtis's comment seems to coincide with this message, stating: The existing rules are very clear. Summarized: If an UPDATE contains only a withdraw for a prefix, then withdraw whatever route the peer had previously sent. If an UPDATE contains the prefix only in the NRLI section, replace whatever route had previously been advertised by the peer or add a route if there was no previous route, in both cases adding a route with the current attributes. Don't put the same prefix in the same in both the withdraw and NRLI section of the same update. If you receive an UPDATE with the same prefix in both the withdraw and NRLI, ignore the withdraw. [Some older implementations thought this was a good way to say "delete then add".] Process UPDATEs from the same peer in the order received. And goes on to say, that to him, these rules are clear from the existing text. Consensus is that while this would be nice, we need to stick with what we have, and move on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the following to section 3.1: Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Discussion: 5. P. 20 Its not stated how we delete or modify Path Attributes associated with NLRI prefixes. A response to this comment said that this is implicit in the definition of "route" and the general withdraw/replace behavior and therefore doesn't need to be repeated. Ben responded saying that, while there was an assumption, there was no well defined mechanism, and this leads to ambiguity. John reponded, no need to define everything explicity, or we'll be here forever. Picking this thread up again, Yakov argued: By *definition* a route is a <path attribute, NLRI> pair. From that definition it follows that changing one or more path attributes of a route means changing a route, which means withdrawing the old route (route with the old attributes) from service and advertising a new route (route with the new attributes). Procedures for doing this are well-defined (see section 3.1), and therefore no new text to cover this is needed. Jonathan agreed with this statement, but Ben argued that the text in section 3 is insufficent the way it is currently written. After two iterations, Ben and Yakov agreed on this formulation for an update to section 3.1: Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Jeff objected somewhat to the wording, since, because of a bgp route is defined as a <path attribute, NLRI> pair, changing either part of that pair, by definition, changes the route. He acknowledged that this might fall under the category of implementation detail. Yakov presented the view that he thought we were at consensus with the text he proposed above. Jonathan agreed. There were no objections, so this is moved to Consnesus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: After reponders pointed out another sentance, this comment was resolved. Things will stay the way they are. Discussion: 1. P.28, 2nd to last paragraph. The line that reads, "To be semantically correct, the IP address in the NEXT_HOP must not be the IP address of the receiving speaker, and the NEXT_HOP IP address must either be the sender's IP address (used to establish the BGP session), or the interface associated with the NEXT_HOP IP address must share a common subnet with the receiving BGP speaker..." This is not always true, what if the current ASBR BGP router is advertising an external AS route (to a IBGP Peer) whose NEXT_HOP IP address is the IP address of the EBGP peer in the other AS? A response to this pointed out that right before this is a sentance stating that this only applied to eBGP links, and only when the peers are one hop from each other, so a modification is unnecessary. This reponse was confirmed with another. The original reviewer acknowldeged this and withdrew the comment. The consensus is to leave things the way they are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: After some discussion, the consensus is to keep things the same since the suggested behavior is defined in the message format. Discussion: 2. P. 29, Section 6.3. Add this rule near the attribute rules. "Multiple prefixes that require the same attribute type with different values must never appear in the same update message". A response to this suggested that this text is unnesessary since this behavior is ruled out by the way the message format is defined. The original commentor agrees with the reponder. The consensus is to leave things the way they are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: It is agreed that this is a change that exceeds the original goal of this draft revision. This goal is to document existing practice in an interoperable way. Discussion: 3. P. 29, Section 6.5, Please rewrite this sentence from: "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or NOTIFICATION messages within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message ..." To This: "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or any other BGP message within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message ..." There is disagreement on this change. It has been discussed in other threads. The original commentor acknowledged that this is something that would be "adding a new feature" as opposed to the stated goal of "documenting what exists." He suggested that the ADs decide if we should open the door for new features or not. Yakov replied to this that he would suggest we keep things as is, since the purpose is to document current implementations. This did not meet with any objections, so this issue has been moved into consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that changing the BGP Identifier in the base draft is out-of-scope at this point in the draft evolution. Discussion: 4. P. 31, section 6.8, Please rewrite this sentence from: "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as (4-octet long) unsigned integers." To This: "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as large numbers based on their IP Address type (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, etc.)." A reponse to this was that since BGP Identifier is defined in the base spec as a 4 byte unsigned integer, and not a variable quantity, the sentance as written is acceptable. This was also confirmed by another response. The original commentor was thinking of IPv6, and providing sufficent space to allow a full v6 address to be used. Again, reponders said that this is out-of-scope for the current draft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add: "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence on p. 46. Discussion: 5. P.46, last sentence, "However, corresponding unresolvable routes SHOULD be kept in the Adj-RIBs-In." It would helpful if the author states why unresolvable routes should be kept in Adj-RIBs-In? A reponse to this stated "In case they become resolveable" Yakov responded that: I suggest we add "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence on p. 46. The original commentor stated that: Then the point that the peer will not refresh the route if we drop them (unless we use Route Refresh) because they are unreachable should be made. Yakov also responded that: This should be clear from the following text in Section 3: The initial data flow is the portion of the BGP routing table that is allowed by the export policy, called the Adj-Ribs-Out (see 3.2). Incremental updates are sent as the routing tables change. BGP does not require periodic refresh of the routing table. Jonathan, who was the original commentor, agreed with both the changed text and the clarity of section 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) Mention Other Message Types ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add a reference to RFC2918 at the end of the type code list. Discussion: 1. P. 7 Type: Need to add the new message types such as, Capability Negotiations (RFC2842), Route Refresh, etc. One reponse argued that these are out-of-scope of the base document. One reponse agreed, but thought that it should be capability and not message type. The original commentor reponsed about Message type from the capability draft. Sue mentioned this would be added in the second round. Yakov replied that: The only new message type that is covered by an RFC (rather than just an Internet Draft) is the Refresh message. With this in mind how about replacing the following: The following type codes are defined: 1 - OPEN 2 - UPDATE 3 - NOTIFICATION 4 - KEEPALIVE with This document defines the following type codes: 1 - OPEN 2 - UPDATE 3 - NOTIFICATION 4 - KEEPALIVE [RFC2918] defines one more type code. Jonathan agreed with this change. This issue has been moved to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) Add References to Additional Options ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Consensus to add: [RFC2842] defines another Optional Parameter. Discussion: 2. P. 9, right after "This document defines the following optional parameters:" Need to mention possible options, such as: Capabilitites (RFC2842), Multiprotocol extensions (RFC2858), Route Refresh (RFC2918). One reponse agreed that adding references would be fine. A second reponse agreed. Yakov replied that: Please note that only rfc2842 defines an OPEN optional parameter. Neither rfc2858 nor rfc2918 defines an OPEN optional parameter. With this in mind I would suggest to add the following text: [RFC2842] defines another Optional Parameter. The original poster agreed with this modification. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) Clarify EGP Reference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Need to clarify the EGP Reference, since there seems to be some confusion on the issue. This is partly addressed in the 32.1 text with the addition of a RFC904 reference to EGP ORIGIN type. Discussion: 3. P. 13, EGP, are there other EGP protocols other than BGP that are in use? If not, change EGP to BGP. A response to this suggested that we add a reference to [1] (the EGP spec) here. Another reponse clarified that this refers to EGP-the-protocol and NOT the class. Another response disagreed, but suggested that: IGP = network was explicitly introduced into bgp (network cmd) INCOMPLETE = network was implicitly introduced into bgp (redistribute) EGP = other The original commentor thought that this refered to EGP-the-class of protocols. And why not use BGP therefore, as the only EGP. There was some disucssion over whether or not we should mention something that is historical. Jeff suggested a footnote in the Origin section about EGP. Curtis suggested that we state that the EGP in ORIGIN is deprecated, but retain the value to document what it used to mean. This reviewer thinks a statement about whether this "EGP" origin refers to the protocol or the class or protocols would be useful. Yakov replied that an EGP reference will be added (see issue 9). Yakov also stated that he doesn't see what is wrong with the current text, and suggsted we keep it. This includes leaving out any reference to the status of the EGP spec. He sees that it is clear from context that we are talking about "the EGP" [RFC904]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change section 5.1.1 to read: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value SHOULD NOT be changed by any other speaker." Consensus to change: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol to: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] Discussion: This discussion is picked up again in the "Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17" thread, where specific text is proposed: Old: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - Network Layer Reachability Information is interior to the originating AS 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol 2 INCOMPLETE - Network Layer Reachability Information learned by some other means" New: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - NLRI was explicitly introduced into bgp 1 EGP - this value was administratively configured to affect policy decisions or NLRI was learned via the EGP protocol [1] 2 INCOMPLETE - NLRI was implicitly introduced into bgp" since: 1) The network command sets the origin to IGP and I remember seeing somewhere that only static routes should be set to IGP. 2) The primary use of EGP value is policy 3) EGP seems to still exist, anyway even if it does not it is not worth re-writing the world. Also, change: "5.1.1 ORIGIN ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the autonomous system that originates the associated routing information. It shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." to: "5.1.1 ORIGIN The value of the ORIGIN attribute shall be set by the speaker that originates the associated NLRI. Its value shall not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." since: 1) It is already defined as well-known mandatory attribute. 2) It may be set differently within the same AS (not saying this is good). 3) It is commonly used for policy, but by default does not get changed. 4) Speakers have no choice, it is mandatory. After much continued discussion on this in the "issue 32.1" thread, we seem to have come to a consensus that section 5.1.1 should read: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." This text met with a number of agreements, and one disagreement stating that we shouldn't have the "unless administratively configured" portion. After some further discussion, we have this text on the table: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers. Jonathan suggested that we change "propagate this information" to "forward this route". He also mentioned that he would prefer something more explicit instead of/in addition to "The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." such as "other speakers do not change the ORIGIN value." On the issue of making the EGP ORIGIN type more clear Andrew proposed: To me, there seems to be sufficent confusion around the "EGP" reference to merit some sort of clarification. The simplest modification would be to change: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol to: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] That would clarify that we're talking about the protocol, and not the class-of-protocols, or EBGP. It would leave unstated that this could theoretically be used to muck with route selection. I think that is ok. If operators want to override ORIGIN to affect some hoho magic, they are welcome to do so, but I don't think it needs to be documented in the base spec. This met with a number of agreements. On the second text section we are working on, Jonathan objected to the current working text below and suggested an alternate: CHANGE: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." TO: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." -or- "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker." Jonathan cited a recent example of someone who was still confused by this section of the text in -17 (not specifically the working text). Yakov proposed this as final text: In 4.3: a) ORIGIN (Type Code 1): ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - Network Layer Reachability Information is interior to the originating AS 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] 2 INCOMPLETE - Network Layer Reachability Information learned by some other means Usage of this attribute is defined in 5.1.1. In 5.1.1: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value SHOULD NOT be changed by any other speaker." This met with agreement. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: After much discussion, this is the consensus: This text in the current draft: To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet. will be replaced in -18 with the following text: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to be enforced*. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond that neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Discussion: In response to these proposals, Yakov proposed that the real problem is that it is not clear that BGP is build to support the destination-based forwarding paradigm. To fix this, it was propsed that: <OLD> To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet. <NEW> Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Curtis thinks the newer text here is more clear. In reponse to the new text, Christian Martin propsed a slightly different new text: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS based on prefixes originating from the local AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. To which Yakov replied: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring AS to some destination (which is outside of the neighboring AS, but is reachable through the neighboring AS) intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by the traffic to the same destination that originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. And Chris reponsed: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring AS to some destination beyond the neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic to the same destination which originates in the neighboring AS. In other words, the BGP policy of a local AS cannot affect the downstream (aka, away from the local AS) forwarding policy of a remote AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Tom Petch prefered Yakov's second formulation, with these changes: policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic ! to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond ! that neighboring AS intending that ! the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic ! originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Yakov agreed to Tom's suggested changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to MED Section Add "well-known mandatory" to the NEXT_HOP Section Discussion: 4. P.23, change the following: "The MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS ..." To the following: "The MULTI_EXIT_DISC is an optional non-transitive attribute which may be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS ..." A reponder disagreed, and stated reasons "covered elsewhere" Original commentor asked for reasons, since the modification seemed obvious to him. Yakov agreed to make this change in -18. Jonathan replied that: 5.1.3 NEXT_HOP also, it is missing " well-known mandatory". Yakov also agreed to make this change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) Timer & Counter Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: No discussion, no text proposed, defaults to consensus for no change. Discussion: 5. In section 8, there are a number of Timers, Counters, etc. that need to be explicitly defined before they are used by the FSM. Perhaps these definitions should go in the Glossary section. There has been no further discussion on this issue. Unless it is brought up again, this issue is in consensus, with no change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35) Fix Typo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix a Typo. No discussion, but this seem clear. Discussion: 1. P. 41. Typing error, "Each time time the local system...". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: This change requires a glossary. Yakov has committed to having a section where commonly used terms are defined in draft 18, so this issue is at consensus. Discussion: 2. Section 9.1, Need to have Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out, and Loc-RIB in the glossary, so when they are used in section 9.1, it is well understood what they are. Yakov replied: will be added to the section "Definition of commonly used terms" in -18 version. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the following terms to the "commonly used terms section": Feasible route A route that is available for use. Unfeasible route A previously advertised feasible route that is no longer available for use. Discussion: 3. P. 45, Phase I, There is no definition of what are unfeasible routes? Are they the same as withdrawn routes? If so, the two should be combined to one name. Ishi replied to this that he thought that we could combine the two terms, since there is limited difference from an implementation standpoint. Yakov replied: The routes are withdrawn from service because they are unfeasible, not because they are "withdrawn". So, we need to keep the term "unfeasible" to indicate the *reason* why a route could be withdrawn. On the other hand, "withdrawn" is used as a verb, and to the best of my knowledge "unfeasible" can't be used as a verb. With this in mind, I don't think that we can combine the two into a single term. Ishi replied that he was convinved, and that the terms should stay seperate. Andrew asked the list if we should define these terms in the "commonly used terms" section in draft -18. Ben replied that if we use them alot, we should define them, and if not local definitions will suffice. There was some back and forth about the necessity of defining terms which should be obvious. mrr actually checked the doc to see if we were consistantly using the terms, and found: It turns out there there is an inconsistancy in the usage of the word withdrawn. Section 3.1: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been withdrawn from service: ... b) a replacement route with the same NLRI can be advertised, or ... Later, in the definition of Withdrawn Routes Length, we have: A value of 0 indicates that no routes are being withdrawn from service, Taken together, this could be construed as meaning that a Withdrawn Routes Length of 0 indicates that all routes included in the UPDATE represent newly feasible routes... not replacement routes. Now, it's possible that this problem has been removed by changes to the text that have not yet been incorporated in to a new draft; however, it arose because the text, for the most part, does _not_ use "withdrawn" in the standard way. Instead, it refers to routes included in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field of an UPDATE message. Consequenty, I propose defining a "withdrawn route" as follows: Withdrawn route: a route included in the WITHDRAW ROUTES field of an UPDATE message. Regardless of whether or not this definition is included, Section 3.1 shold be changed from: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been withdrawn from service: to: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been removed from service: or: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route is now unfeasible: After some further off-list discussion, mrr agreed that this inconsistancy is extremely minor, and withdrew his comment. feasible and unfeasible route will be defined in the "commonly used terms" section to clear up any confusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Consensus that the issue was suffiecently minor to leave things alone. Discussion: 4. P. 50, line, "If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out the previously advertised route in that Adj-RIB-Out must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)." Would like to rephrase the sentence for clarity, "If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out and was previously advertised via Adj-RIB-Out, it must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)." One comment suggested either leave it alone, or remove "via Adj-RIB-Out". The original commentor withdrew the comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Redundant definitions, clarity requested. Possible solution below. Discussion: 5. P. 50, section 9.1.4, The two fragments of this sentence are redundant and don't say anything new or simplify the content. Just keep one fragment. "A route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix) is said to be more specific than a route describing a larger set of destinations (a shorted prefix); similarly, a route describing a larger set of destinations (a shorter prefix) is said to be less specific than a route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix)." There was a comment that disagreed, thinking that both "more specific" and "less specific" need to be defined. And suggested that only the third and forth parentheses need to be dropped. The original commentor agreed with the parentheses changes. Yakov agreed to drop the third and fourth parentheses in the -18 version. Jonathan replied to this: Disagree, the text if fine the way it is, except you need to change "shorted" to "shorter". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that current practice allows for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval to be set per peer, so the text should be kept the same. Discussion: 6. P. 52, section 9.2.1.1 Change this sentence for clarity, "This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-destination basis, although the value of MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is set on a per BGP peer basis." To This: "This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-destination basis, although the value of MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is set on a BGP router (same value for all peers) basis." There was a comment disagreeing with this proposal. It was later elaborated on to include that the reason for diagreement was that the proposed changes changed the protocol and not just a practice clarification. Ben reponded asking for how this is a protocol change, he saw it as a clarification. Perhaps there is something deeper that needs to be clarified? Again, response to this is that current implementations allow the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval to be set per-peer, not per-router. Original reviwer conceeded the point. There was some additonal discussion on this point. Most of it was along the lines of extracting what was really implemented and supported among various vendors. The conclusion was the same. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No discussion on this issue. No text proposed. Perhaps this is in the FSM section of the draft? Either way, it defaults to consensus with no change. Discussion: 7. P. 61, item 6.4. Although all the BGP protocol interfacing timers are mentioned, there are a few FSM internal timers mentioned in the spec that need to be covered here as well. There has been no discussion on this, it now defaults to consensus with no change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42) Delete the FSM Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: There was some confusion on the question: Is the FSM draft going to be a seperate document, or incorporated into the base draft. The consensus is that it is going to become part of the base draft, so the FSM section will be kept, and elaborated on. Discussion: 8. Since there is going to be an FSM spec, do we need to have FSM descriptions in this spec. Maybe the FSM section should be delete. There was one response agreeing with this. One reponse asking for claificaiton: Was this a move to remove section 8. Finite State Machine from the base draft?? The original reviewer said, yes, when Sue's FSM draft becomes a WG document, we should remove section 8 from the base draft. Yakov asked that the AD's provide input on this suggestion. Alex responded saying that the FSM draft is going to be part of the base spec, and not another document once the FSM words are approved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace: "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." With: If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer. Discussion: The "NOTIFICATION message error handling" thread proposed: Please change" "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." To: "If a peer receives a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." This reversal of meaning met with disagreement, and this text was proposed instead: All errors detected while processing the NOTIFICATION message cannot be indicated by sending subsequent NOTIFICATION message back to originating peer, therefore there is no means of reporting NOTIFICATION message processing errors. Any error, such as an unrecognized Error Code or Error Subcode, should be noticed, logged locally, and brought to the attention of the administration of the peer that has sent the message. The means to do this, however, lies outside the scope of this document. The original posted agreed with the intent of the respondant's text, thought it was too wordy, but did not propose alternate text. Yakov replied with this propsed text: If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer. Two responses liked this new text. Unless there are objections, we'll consider that a consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: One commentor observed that the spec seems to specify behavior that doesn't seem to be observed by extant implementations, and suggested modifications to the spec. They were later reminded that the base behavior is acceptable, and agreed. Discussion: The "BGP4 draft ; section 6.2" thread began with a discussion of section 6.2: OPEN message error handling. Specifically: "If one of the optional parameters in the Open mesage is not recognized, then the error subcode is set to 'unsupported optional parameters" We have hit on this line when we were testing a BGP connection between a speaker that supported capability negotiation and a speaker that did not. The speaker that did not support the neogotiation closed down the peering session using the error clause mentioned above. Sometimes this lead to the other router to repeat the OPEN message with the Capability optional parameter; a game that went on for minutes. This router manufacturer stated in a reply to this that : "One should not close down the connection if an optional parameter is unrecognised. That would make this parameter basically mandatory. This is an well known error in the BGP spec. Neither Cisco or Juniper do this" If this is true it might be good to adapt the text. The response to this quoted RFC2842, Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4: A BGP speaker determines that its peer doesn't support capabilities advertisement, if in response to an OPEN message that carries the Capabilities Optional Parameter, the speaker receives a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Subcode set to Unsupported Optional Parameter. In this case the speaker should attempt to re-establish a BGP connection with the peer without sending to the peer the Capabilities Optional Parameter. The original poster responded: This section from the Capabilities Advertisement RFC, is indeed inline with the section 6.2 of the BGP4 specification. For me however the question remains if most implementations do no simply ignore optional parameters that are unknown. And if so, if the text stated above reflects what is implemented by routers that do not have capability advertisement at all. Yakov replied to this with: RFC2842 assumes that a router (that doesn't implement RFC2842) would close the BGP session when the router receives an OPEN message with an unrecognized Optional Parameter. Therefore the text in the spec should be left unmodified. The original poster, Jonathan, agreed with this. This issue moves to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Update the document to make references to BGP Peers, Connections and Sessions more clear and consistant. Proposed text is below, as well as current comments. Discussion: Ben proposed and Yakov responded: > 1. Throughout the document we have various ways of naming the BGP > peering communication. 1) BGP Session, 2) BGP Peering Session, I'll replace "session" with "connection". > 3) TCP Connection, The spec doesn't name BGP peering communication as "TCP connection"; TCP connection is used to establish BGP connection. So, TCP connection and BGP connection are two different things. > 4) BGP Connection, The spec is going to use this term (see above). > 5) BGP Peering Connection, I'll replace "BGP peering connection" with "BGP connection". > 6) Connection, The text uses "connection" whenever it is clear from the context that it refers to "BGP connection" (or "TCP connection"). > 7) BGP Speaker Connection. I'll replace "BGP Speaker Connection" with "BGP connection". > > BGP router: 1) BGP Speaker, 2) speaker, 3)local speaker The term "speaker" is used when it is clear from the context that we are talking about "BGP speaker". > 2. Change Internal peer to IBGP Peer. IBGP stands for "BGP connection between internal peers". Therefore the term "IBGP Peer" would mean "BGP connection between internal peers peer". That doesn't seem appropriate. This issue has had some discussion, and section 3 was referenced, specifically: Refer to Section 3 - Summary of operations which clearly states that " .. a peer in a different AS is referred to as an external peer, while a peer in the same AS may be described as an internal peer. Internal BGP and external BGP are commonly abbreviated IBGP and EBGP" After more discussion it was decided that we should modify a paragraph on page 4 to read: If a particular AS has multiple BGP speakers and is providing transit service for other ASs, then care must be taken to ensure a consistent view of routing within the AS. A consistent view of the interior routes of the AS is provided by the IGP used within the AS. For the purpose of this document, it is assumed that a consistent view of the routes exterior to the AS is provided by having all BGP speakers within the AS maintain IBGP with each other. Care must be taken to ensure that the interior routers have all been updated with transit information before the BGP speakers announce to other ASs that transit service is being provided. This change has consensus. > 3. Change External peer to EBGP Peer. Ditto. Alex responded that haveing explicit definitions would be nice. This ties into the general glossary suggestion (see issues 16, 34 & 36). He also suggested that: "BGP session" which works over a "TCP connection" would be closer to the terminology we're actually using now and would avoid possible confusions when people read terms like "Connection collision") This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We need to decide which text (the original base draft, or the FSM draft) needs to be updated to clear up this issue. There does appear to be agreement that some clarification would be beneficial. Discussion: The original reviewer (Tom) commented that the base draft, FSM section, could use some clarification around the area of connection collision detection. Specifically, he argued that it seems like there are actually 2 FSM's depending on which one backs off in the case of a collision. He proposed this text to clear things up: "8 BGP FInite State Machine This section specifies BGP operation - between a BGP speaker and its peer over a single TCP connection - in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before) Instead of just "This section specifies BGP operation in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before). Curtis responded: There is one FSM per connection. Prior to determining what peer a connection is associated with there may be two connections for a given peer. There should be no more than one connection per peer. The collision detection identifies the case where there is more than one connection per peer and provides guidance for which connection to get rid of. When this occurs, the corresponding FSM for the connection that is closed should be disposed of. I'm not sure which document containing an FSM we should be reading at this point, but we could add the above paragraph if we need to explicitly state that the extra connection and its FSM is disposed of when a collision is detected. When a TCP accept occurs, a connection is created and an FSM is created. Prior to the point where the peer associated with the connection is known the FSM cannot be associated with a peer. The collision is a transient condition in which the rule of "one BGP session per peer" is temporarily violated and then corrected. This is discussed in the "FSM but FSM of what?" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: A desire for explicit state change wording was expressed. No text was proposed. The assumption is that this issue has reached a happy conclusion. Discussion: The initial reviewer: In most places, the actions taken on the receipt of an event include what the new state will be or that it remains unchanged. But there are a signficant number of places where this is not done (eg Connect state events 14, 15, 16). I would like to see consistency, always specify the new/unchanged state. Else I may be misreading it. There was a reponse asking for specific text, and offering to take the discussion private. This is discussed in the "FSM words - state changes" thread. There has been no further discussion on this. The assumption is that is has reached a happy conclusion privately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Text has been proposed to describe the general process of a BGP connection comming up. Discussion: Alex suggsted we explicity define: - processing of incoming TCP connections (peer lookup, acceptance, FSM creation, collision control,) Curtis later proposed this text: BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. For each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is not known with certainty. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same peer may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each peer plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. Jonathan pointed out that there was an inaccuracy in the proposed text. Curtis replied with this: You're correct in that you must have a collision of IP addresses on the TCP connections and that the BGP Identifier is used only to resolve which gets dropped. The FSM stays around as long as "BGP Identifier" is not known. Replace "not known with certainty" with "known but the BGP identifier is not known" and replace "for the same peer" with "for the same configured peering". The first paragraph is unchanged: BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. The second paragraph becomes: A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. For each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier is not known. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same configured peering may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). The next paragraph then needs to get fixed. Changed "for each peer" to "for each configured peering". A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. Add a paragraph to further clarify the point you made. There may be more than one connection between a pair of peers if the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" to the same peer. > So multiple simultaneous BGP connection are allowed between the same two > peers, and this behavior is implemented, for example to do load balancing. Good point. I hope the corrections above cover your (entirely valid) objections. If you see any more errors please let me know. Tom replied that: I take issue with the 'will attempt to connect' which goes too far. The FSM defines events 4 and 5, 'with passive Transport establishment', so the system may wait and not attempt to connect. The exit from this state is either the receipt of an incoming TCP connection (SYN) or timer expiry. So we may have a FSM attempting to transport connect for a given source/destination IP pair or we may have an FSM not attempting to connect. (In the latter case, I do not think we can get a collision). In the latter case, an incoming connection should not generate an additional FSM. I do not believe the concept of active and passive is helpful since a given system can flip from one to the other and it does not help us to clarify the number of FSM involved.. And Curtis suggested that: Could this be corrected by replacing "will attempt to connect" with "unless configured to remain in the idle state, or configured to remain passive, will attempt to connect". We could also shorten that to "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise". Clarification (perhaps an item for a glossary entry): The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for almost a decade and have proven useful. The words active and passive have slightly different meanings applied to a TCP connection or applied to a peer. There is only one active side and one passive side to any one TCP connection as per the definition below. When a BGP speaker is configured passive it will never attempt to connect. If a BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't matter which end was active and which end was passive and the only difference is which side of the TCP connection has port number 179. Tom agreed with Curtis, that he liked the "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise" verbiage. This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49) Explicity Define Event Generation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Suggested that we explictiy define BGP message processing. No text proposed. There has been no further discussion on this issue, it is assumed that the consensus is that things are ok the way they are. Discussion: Alex suggsted we explicity define: - generation of events while processing BGP messages, i.e., the text describing message processing should say where needed that a specific event for the BGP session should be generated. No text was proposed. This discussion has received no further comment. Unless someone wants to reopen it, it is assumed it has reached a happy ending. This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50) FSM Timers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Discussion tabled, because new document version rendered the discussion moot. Discussion: This discussion began with a suggestion that the timers currently in the FSM: In the 26Aug text, I find the timer terminology still confusing. Timers can, I find, stop start restart clear set reset expire Can be cleaned up and simplified to: start with initial value (spell it out just to be sure) stop expire A reponse to this proposal was, that the existing set is clear, and that the proposed set is insufficently rich to describe a concept like "reset" which encompases: "Stop the timer, and reset it to its initial value." This discussion reached an impasse, when Sue pointed out that the text had been updated, and to please review the new text. This was discussed in the "FSM more words" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Discussion tabled, because new document version rendered the discussion moot. Discussion: This started with the observation that the ConnectRetryCnt "seems to have lost its purpose." It was suggested that this be made a Session Attribute, along with: OpenDelayTimer and DelayOpenFlag. Curtis explained that the current purpose of the ConnectRetryCnt is something to be read by the MIB. He also advocated against adding the additional Session Attributes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. Discussion: This thread started with a question about why we should retain routes in the Adj-RIB-In, and how it relates to the Route Refresh extention. mrr proposed this text: ... Therefore, a BGP speaker must either retain the current version of the routes advertised by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. This is necessary to allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without requiring the reset of any peering sessions. If the implementation decides not to retain the current version of the routes that have been received from a peer, then Route Refresh messages should be sent whenever there is a change to local policy. Yakov later suggsted this text, with a slight rewording: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. mrr reponded that he was fine with Yakov's suggestions. This was discussed in the "Proxy: comments on section 3" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Clean up the wording in text surrounding the UPDATE message. There was no discussion or consensus on this. But, does the consensus change reached in issue 54 address this sufficently? Discussion: This issue arose out of this question to the list: Since: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are the systems whose IP addresses are reported in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message." When I read section 4.3: "An UPDATE message is used to advertise feasible routes sharing common path attribute to a peer, or to withdraw multiple unfeasible routes from service (see 3.1)." Shouldn't the text read "... advertise feasible [prefixes | destinations] sharing common path attribute(S)to a peer ...", because: 1) A route is defined as quoted above from section 3.1? or since ... "An UPDATE message can advertise at most one set of path attributes, but multiple destinations ..." 2) make "routes" in the orignal singular. There was no discussion or consensus on this. This was discussed in the "Review Comments: Section 4.3: "routes" vs. destinations - advertise" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change the definition of "route" as it currently stands to: For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are contained in one IP address prefix carried in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE message and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Discussion: This issue was brought up with this question: When I read these two paragraphs at the end of section 4.3: "An UPDATE message can list multiple routes to be withdrawn from service. Each such route is identified by its destination (expressed as an IP prefix), which unambiguously identifies the route in the context of the BGP speaker - BGP speaker connection to which it has been previously advertised. An UPDATE message might advertise only routes to be withdrawn from service, in which case it will not include path attributes or Network Layer Reachability Information. Conversely, it may advertise only a feasible route, in which case the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field need not be present." It reads as if one must withdraw the _set of destinations_ advertised with the route instead of just one or more destinations since route is defined in section 3.1 as: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are the systems whose IP addresses are reported in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message." Shouldn't the text change "routes" to destinations, or to prefixes? The original commentor added this clarificaiton later: I meant to say, the *same* set of destinations as those advertised initially. For example, NLRI with dest-a, dest-b and dest-c with the same attributes is a "route". The withdrawal of the "route" can be read as one must withdraw all destinations originally advertised for that route (dest-a, dest-b, dest-c) as a unit. A first time reader could be left wondering if the above must be the case, or it is valid for an implementation to withdraw just one of these destinations (e.g. dest-b), leaving the others (dest-a, dest-c) reachable with their attributes intact. If there is no relationship between destinations when advertised as a set of destinations in a route and those destinations that can be withdrawn should be explicitly stated. Otherwise, the draft should call out that it is not legal to withdraw one prefix only in the set of prefixes advertised as previously as route. Matt suggested that since the definition seems to cause some confusion, that we update teh definition to: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are reported in one prefix present in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. This definition allows multiple routes to be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE. All such prefixes must be associated with the same set of path attributes." Yakov suggested some minor rewording: For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are contained in one IP address prefix carried in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE message and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Both Jeff and Matt responded that they liked this text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace: Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs in the path segment value field. With: Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (not the number of octets) in the path segment value field. Discussion: This question was raised: Length fields elsewhere in the draft specify the number of bytes that a variable length field uses. For AS_PATH, length is used as the number of 2 byte AS numbers. In the interest of not having to check other sources to be sure, should the descripton of path segment value: "The path segment value field contains one or more AS numbers, each encoded as a 2-octets long field." explicitly mention the number of bytes used by the variable length field? Or, make the description of length explicitly mention that it is not the length of the variable length field as is the case with other length fields? One respone to this agreed that some more clarification would be good, specifically an ASCII art diagram. No diagram was proposed. Yakov proposed this change: How about replacing Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs in the path segment value field. with the following Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (but not the number of octets) in the path segment value field. Jonathan offered this text: How about: "Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (which is half the number of octets since each AS is 2 octets) in the path segment value field (also note that the path may contain more than 1 segment). Jeff replied that he prefered Yakov's text, but without the "but". Yakov agreed to that. Andrew also agreed, and asked if there were any objections to moving this issue into consensus. There were no objections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: There are a variety of updates to the text that are best described in the discussion section. Discussion: This discussion began with some suggestions on ways to clarify the text in section 6 dealing with error handling. The original comments, and Yakov's response are below: > At the beginning of Section 6. BGP Error Handling: > > > "When any of the conditions described here are detected, a > NOTIFICATION message with the indicated Error Code, Error Subcode, > and Data fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed." > > There are several cases where the conditions described in this section > do not result in the BGP connection being closed. These conditions > should either state that the connection stays up. Another possibility > is to remove "and the BGP connection is closed." above, and for each > listed connection, state what happens to the BGP connection. This > already takes place for certain conditions, but isn't done consistantly. How about replacing the above with the following: When any of the conditions described here are detected, a NOTIFICATION message with the indicated Error Code, Error Subcode, and Data fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed, unless it is explicitly stated that no NOTIFICATION message is to be sent and the BGP connection is not to be close. > > > I tried to list what I found (which may be wrong or incomplete) below: > > > > "If the NEXT_HOP attribute is semantically incorrect, the error should > be logged, and the route should be ignored. In this case, no > NOTIFICATION message should be sent." > > * Append the connection is not closed. Done. > > "(a) discard new address prefixes from the neighbor, or (b) terminate > the BGP peering with the neighbor." > > * Append "the connection is not closed" to case (a) added "(while maintaining BGP peering with the neighbor)" to case (a). > > "If > the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be > stored in the Adj-RIB-In," > > * append and the BGP connection stays up. > > "but unless the router is configured to > accept routes with its own autonomous system in the AS path, the > route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." I would suggest to move this text to Section 9 (UPDATE message handling), as receiving a route with your own AS in the AS path isn't really an error. It is just that usually (but not always) you can't put this route in your Adj-RIB-In. > > * Q1) does the BGP connection stay up? yes. > * Q2) what if the router isn't configured to accept routes with its own > AS in the AS path? One _may_ store the route in Adj-RIB-In, but if one > doesn't want to? So, don't store them. > Is the BGP connection closed? If so, what subcode? The connection is *not* closed. > "If an optional attribute is recognized, then the value of this > attribute is checked. If an error is detected, the attribute is > discarded, and the Error Subcode is set to Optional Attribute Error. > The Data field contains the attribute (type, length and value)." > > * Append and the BGP conneciton stays up after "the attribute is discarded". Since you have to close the connection, you have to discard all the routes received via this connection, including the route with the incorrect attribute. So, there is no need to say that "the attribute is discarded". There have been no objections to the updates listed above. This issue seems to have reached a happy ending, so it has been moved into consensus. This was discussed in the "-17 review Section 6 - BGP Error Handling." thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: It was suggested that we update the text to say that we MUST reject hold time values of zero. It was pointed out that this is not the case and the text should say the way it is. Discussion: In Section 6.2 on OPEN message error handling: If the Hold Time field of the OPEN message is unacceptable, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Unacceptable Hold Time. An implementation MUST reject Hold Time values of one or two seconds. I feel that text similar to: "An implementation MUST also reject Hold Time values of zero received from a peer in a different AS" should be considered for completeness. A number of respondants pointed out that zero hold time is legitimate under certain circumstances. This was discussed in the "-17 review, Section 6.2 - must reject hold time" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: For new text, please see the end of the discussion. Discussion: Jeff opened this discussion with: Deprecation of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: [This is a summary of some discussions from those who have "been there, done that" during the CIDR deployment period and also comments from network operators on the NANOG list.] When BGP-4 was originally drafted, the topic of aggregation was new enough that people didn't exactly know how it would be used. Additionally, there were some transition issues when aggregated networks would need to be de-aggregated and re-advertised into a classful routing mesh such as BGP-3. The ATOMIC_AGGREGATE flag was intended to prevent a route from being de-aggregated when de-aggregation would introduce routing loops. Note that de-aggregation in this context specifically means making a less specific route into one or more more-specific routes. The current BGP draft has two situations where ATOMIC_AGGREGATE should be appeneded to a route: 1. When a route's AS_PATH is intentionally truncated, such as what happens by default on Cisco's, or using the "brief" option on GateD. Juniper has a similar feature - I'm unsure of the default. 2. When two routes are implicitly aggregated in the LocRib such that a more specific route is not selected when a less specific route is from a given peer. Note that this particular feature is not implemented anywhere that I am aware of. 3. There is a third case not covered by the specification: Implicit aggregation on export - a more specific route is not exported and only a less specific one is. When network operators were asked about de-aggregation practices, I received about 40 responses. The majority of these responses confused de-aggregation with leaking existing more-specific routes that are used internally rather than explicitly de-aggregating a less-specific route. There were a very few cases of explicit de-aggregation. One form was done for purposes of dealing with another ISP creating a routing DoS by advertising IP space that didn't belong to them - leaked more specifics alleviated the problem in many cases. (Note that this is a security issue in the routing system.) The second case was de-aggregating routes internally (and sending the routes via IBGP marked with NO-ADVERTISE) for purposes of traffic engineering routing internally where a given upstream failed to provide enough routing information to allow traffic flows to be optimized based on supplied prefixes. My conclusions to this are: 1. De-aggregation is not a common practice. 2. It is no longer a major concern since classful inter-domain routing is pretty much gone. 3. The spec doesn't match reality and should be corrected. My suggestions are thus this: Section 5.1.6 should be updated as follows: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. Its use is deprecated. When a router explicitly aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated (usually due to truncation), the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. Section 9.1.4 should be updated as follows: Original text: : If a BGP speaker receives overlapping routes, the Decision Process : MUST consider both routes based on the configured acceptance policy. : If both a less and a more specific route are accepted, then the : Decision Process MUST either install both the less and the more : specific routes or it MUST aggregate the two routes and install the : aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same value of : the NEXT_HOP attribute. : : If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add : ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries : ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the : NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along : such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually : traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Replace with: It is common practice that more specific routes are often implicitly aggregated by selecting or advertising only a less-specific route when overlapping routes are present. As such, all routes SHOULD be treated as if ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is present and not be made more specific (de-aggregated). De-aggregation may lead to routing loops. Section 9.2.2 should remain as it is. Implications of not making the above updates: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is not implemented as documented. Current operational practices do not seem to often trigger situations that it was intended to remediate. After all, by the way it is currently documented, many of the routes in the Internet would likely have ATOMIC_AGGREGATE. The original motivation for this investigation (aside from a few years of wondering what this portion of the spec *really* meant) was making sure the MIB is correctly documented. I can do this now, even if the spec is not corrected by simply noting that the values: lessSpecificRouteNotSelected(1), lessSpecificRouteSelected(2) mean: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE not present ATOMIC_AGGREGATE present rather than documenting anything about less and more specific routes. The v2MIB can be fixed to just call it what it is since it hasn't been RFC'ed yet. Lastly, the spec would just be incorrect. But all said, nothing bad would really come of this. Yakov responded to this, saying that he thought these changes were reasonable, and unless there were objections, they would be adopted. Ishi strongly agreed with the changes. Curtis stated that: We used to add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE whenever the AS_PATH was truncated rather than replaced with an AS_SET. It was always purely informational since no one intentionally deaggregated and reannounced. And suggested that we remove the MUSTs and indicated that this is only informational. Jeff replied that: The point is that by definition of the attribute, anywhere that policy is used (and some places where it may not be), ATOMIC_AGGREGATE *should* be there. Since its not, and it would generally be everwhere, you just shouldn't de-aggregate. At best, leaving it as a method of informationally signalling truncation of a AS_PATH is the best we'll get out of it - and it matches current implementations. Jonathan agreed with Curtis' idea that we should just move ATOMIC_AGGREGATE to informational. Curtis proposed this text: This existing text is fine: f) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE (Type Code 6) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute of length 0. Usage of this attribute is described in 5.1.6. This is the existing text that we are considering changing: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Suuggested new text: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Diffs (for reader convenience): @@ -4,13 +4,19 @@ ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of - advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated - route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH - of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when - advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. + advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the + aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of + AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network + administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be + advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. + + If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in + the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of + dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the + peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE - attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when + attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE Current text in 9.1.4: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Change to: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include all AS used to form the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. This attribute is now primarily informational. With the elimination of IP routing protocols that do not support classless routing and the elimination of router and host implementations that do not support classless routing, there is no longer a need to deaggregate. Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in particular MUST NOT be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. This text in 9.2.2.2 need not change. ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route shall have this attribute as well. The appendix need not change: Appendix 1. Comparison with RFC1771 [...] Clarifications to the use of the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. This might be a bit more wordy that is necessary. It does address the objections to keeping ATOMIC_AGGREGATE by making the MUST into SHOULD, and explaining that ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is now primarily informational. Yakov was fine with this text. Yakov posted the text that represents the WG consensus: Replace: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. with: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. In 9.1.4 replace: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. with: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include all AS used to form the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. This attribute is now primarily informational. With the elimination of IP routing protocols that do not support classless routing and the elimination of router and host implementations that do not support classless routing, there is no longer a need to deaggregate. Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in particular MUST NOT be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. This met with agreement. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59) Section 4.3 - Move text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes (minimal) Summary: Update indentation to allow a new "subsection" heading. Otherwise no change. Discussion: This began with this suggestion: The text about the mimimum length, at first look, gives the impression that it is still part of the NLRI field description and/or the Path Attributes section. A new "subsection" or heading of some sort would be helpfull in switching context back to the UPDATE message as a whole and not the path attributes field anymore. Yakov agreed to update the indentation. Jonathan agreed, and suggested this text: " The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 23 octets -- 19 octets for the fixed header + 2 octets for the Withdrawn Routes Length + 2 octets for the Total Path Attribute Length (the value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." Should be moved up to just after "... the Total Path Attribute Length field and the Withdrawn Routes Length field." Yakov responded to this with: Disagree, as "... the Total Path Attribute Length field and the Withdrawn Routes Length field." explains how to calculate the length of NLRI field (and therefore is part of the NLRI field description), while "The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 23 octets...." has to do with the length of the UPDATE message. Jonathan also suggested: " the value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." Should be changed to " the min. value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the min. value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." And Yakov responded with: Disagree, as the text doesn't talk about what is the minimum value of the Withdrawn Routes Length and Total Path Attribute Length fields, but talks about the value of these fields in the case of a min length UPDATE message. After Yakov's response and a posting to the list asking that this be moved to consensus, there were no objections, so this is moved to consensus. This is discussed in the "Review: Comments: Section 4.3: UPDATE min length" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Make this change to clarify path attributes in an UPDATE: To correct the confusion I propose to replace: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. with: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE message, except for an UPDATE message that carries only the withdrawn routes. Discussion: This thread began with MikeC pointing out: The top of page 13 says: "A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE." Is this really true, given that later, in the second to last paragraph of this section (4.3): "An UPDATE message might advertise only routes to be withdrawn from service, in which case it will not include path attributes or Network Layer Reachability Information." This could be confusing to a first time reader. The path attribute length is present in every UPDATE, the path attribute field itself can be left out, both according to the description of the minimum length of the UPDATE message and (implied?) in the picture of the UPDATE message at the beginning of section 4.3. This met with one agreement. Yakov then proposed that: To correct the confusion I propose to replace: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. with: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE message, except for an UPDATE message that carries only the withdrawn routes. There was one agreement with this proposal. This is discussed in the thread: "Review: Section 4.3 - Path Attributes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: More cleary specify the behavior of NEXT_HOP modification, for the text see the end of the discussion. Discussion: Jonathan began this thread with: I propose adding: "When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer)." AFTER "When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP." There has been no discussion on this. This is discussed in the "Next hop for redistributed routes" thread. Issue 14 closed in favor of this issue. In response to Yakov's call for input, Michael responded that: Section 5.1.3 explictly states what to do when originating to an etternal peer. #2 covers one hop away, #3 covers more than on hop away. #1 talks about sending to an iBGP peer, but only when propergating a route received from an eBGP peer. 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. Text similar to #2 shoud be added, in their own bullit items to #1 such as what was suggested by Jonathan Natale (text is above.) Yakov replied with this: Replace: 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. with: 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, if the route is not locally originated the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer). And stated the change would be made if there were no objections. There have been no objections, so this is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. The textual changes are listed at the end of the discussion section of this issue. Discussion: This discussion started in issue 21: Authentication Text Update. This topic has come up before (July timeframe), but was recently refreshed in the context of issue 21. It began with some questions to the list as to who used what sort of authentication mechanisms. From the responses it was clear that MD5 (RFC2385) was the prefered method. Eric Gray's message helps to flesh this out: The question is not whether MD5 authentication is used, it is how is it implemented in real BGP implementations or - more importantly - where is the authentication information located in the packets sent between two BGP peers? This is not strictly an implementation issue because authentication information is located in different places depending on which version of MD5 authentication is in use. As is generally known, options are not necessarily good. Currently, between RFC 1771 and RFC 2385, there are two very distinct ways to accomplish a semantically identical function. If the mechanism defined in RFC 1771 is not supported by a number of interoperable implementations, it must be deprecated per RFC 2026 prior to advancing the specification to Draft Standard. If it is not implemented and actually in use, it should be deprecated if for no other reason than to make the To this Yakov responded: To be more precise, In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those options or features are removed. So, the relevant question is whether we have at least two implementations that support authentication as described in rfc1771. Folks who implemented authentication, as described in rfc1771, please speak up. There have been no responses to Yakov's question. There seems to be a consensus that, since it is little used, and since there are better mechanisms, namely MD5 authentication, we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771. Ok, after some disucssion, this is a list of the text that we are adding, changing or removing: 1) Remove the reference to the authentication optional parameter: I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet Authentication Code followed by a variable length Authentication Data. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth. Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Authentication Data | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Authentication Code: This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an authentication mechanism is specified for use within BGP, three things must be included in the specification: - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates use of the mechanism, - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be used in establishing the transport level connection. Authentication Data: Authentication Data is a variable length field that is interpreted according to the value of the Authentication Code field. 2) Update the introduction: In section 2 (Introduction), sixth paragraph From: BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. To: BGP uses TCP [RFC793] as its transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. BGP listens on TCP port 179. Any authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be used. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that TCP supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. 3) Update the message header format section: From: Marker: This 16-octet field contains a value that the receiver of the message can predict. If the Type of the message is OPEN, or if the OPEN message carries no Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the Marker must be all ones. Otherwise, the value of the marker can be predicted by some a computation specified as part of the authentication mechanism (which is specified as part of the Authentication Information) used. The Marker can be used to detect loss of synchronization between a pair of BGP peers, and to authenticate incoming BGP messages. To: Marker: This 16-octet field is included for compatibility; it must be set to all ones. 4) Update the Message Header error handling section: In section 6.1 (Message Header error handling), second paragraph From: The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones if the message type is OPEN. The expected value of the Marker field for all other types of BGP messages determined based on the presence of the Authentication Information Optional Parameter in the BGP OPEN message and the actual authentication mechanism (if the Authentication Information in the BGP OPEN message is present). If the Marker field of the message header is not the expected one, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. To: The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones. If the Marker field of the message header is not as expected, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. 5) Remove a paragraph from the OPEN mesage error handling section (section 6.2): If the OPEN message carries Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the corresponding authentication procedure is invoked. If the authentication procedure (based on Authentication Code and Authentication Data) fails, then the Error Subcode is set to Authentication Failure. 6) Update the "Differences from RFC1771 Appendix" Text not listed here 7) Fix the hole in the numbering by updating: From: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): To: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Optional parameter type 1, Authentication Information, has been deprecated. We are at consensus with these changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63) Clarify MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Modify text to clear up MED removal behavior. Text is at the end of the discussion. Discussion: This discussion began when Jonathan posted a question to the list: In reference to: "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route" Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it cannot. Juniper??? Other code??? Change to "SHOULD"??? Enke responded that: As the MED value is treated as zero when the MED attribute is missing, removing the MED attribute is really equivalent to setting the value to zero. Based on this logic, one can argue that "MED removal" is supported by multiple vendors. However, I do see that the current text can be consolidated and cleaned up: ------------------------ 5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC ... A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). ------------------------- How about this: A BGP speaker MUST implement a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the value of MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute of a received route to be altered. This shall be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). -------------------------- In responding to a question, Enke also added: > Humm. I thought with a missing MED it was prefereable to be treated as > worst not as 0. It was changed a long time ago. Please see the following text in Sect. 9.1.2.2 of the draft: In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. Curtis replied to Enke: If Juniper treats missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC as worst and Cisco has a knob to treat missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC as worst, then IMHO we should change the spec to say that MED(n) returns the largest value possible is MULTI_EXIT_DISC is missing since this has better loop suppression bahaviour if the placement of MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal is moved in its position in the flow from Adj-In-RIB to Loc-RIB to Adj-Rib-Out. In other words, no matter where the removal takes place, we are loop free without special rules about comparing EBGP before MED removal and then IBGP after MED removal. The only argument for MED(n) going to zero for missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC was that Cisco routers did that (and change would pose an operational issue if there wasn't a knob to facilitate the change). Note that when explicitly jamming a MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, such as zero, the issue of where in the decision process the MULTI_EXIT_DISC learned from the EBGP peers could still be used becomes a concern again. Unfortunately these implementation hints are necessary to remain loop free and so its hard to declare them out of scope, unless we forbid changing MULTI_EXIT_DISC and just allow it to be removed (which does not reflect current practice). Curtis also added: The other issue was MED handling. In "5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC": A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). This doesn't sufficiently address the issue. The MED step in the decision process is (in 9.1.2.2): c) Remove from consideration routes with less-preferred MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes. MULTI_EXIT_DISC is only comparable between routes learned from the same neighboring AS. Routes which do not have the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute are considered to have the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value. This is also described in the following procedure: for m = all routes still under consideration for n = all routes still under consideration if (neighborAS(m) == neighborAS(n)) and (MED(n) < MED(m)) remove route m from consideration In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. The problem is that a route loop can be formed. To avoid the route loop, two suggestions were made (2-3 years ago and nothing was done). One was to make MED(n) return infinity if there was no MULTI_EXIT_DISC. The other was to consider MULTI_EXIT_DISC in the decision process only for the purpose of selecting among the EBGP peers, then remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC, then use that best route in comparisons to IBGP learned routes. The statement in 5.1.4 "This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2)" does not sufficiently address this. This implies that you MAY also remove after route selection, in which case field experience indicates you WILL get burned (unless you know about the caveat above). Initially this came up as an interoperability issue but later it was proven (in the field) that a Cisco and another Cisco could form a route loop until Cisco made this change. Additional wording is needed either in 5.1.4 or in 9.1.2.2. I suggest we put a forward reference in 5.1.4: [...]. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. Then in 9.1.2.2 add a clarificatio to the neighborAS(n) function and add to the existing text. Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route, not the internal AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. The loop is the classic I prefer your and you prefer mine problem. It occurs when the router is configured to remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertise out a route so other routers can use IGP cost to select the best route. If two routers do this, as soon as they hear the route with no MULTI_EXIT_DISC from the other peer they start forwarding toward that peer but they continue to advertise to it since others IBPG peers are expected to select among the MULTI_EXIT_DISC free IBGP learned routes using the next step in the decision process, IGP cost. In this case, what you want is each router to prefer its own EBGP route, even though it has a MULTI_EXIT_DISC and the IBGP learned route from the same neighbor AS has had its MULTI_EXIT_DISC stripped off (or didn't have one, you can't tell which it is). You then want all of the IBGP peers with a MULTI_EXIT_DISC free route from that AS, or that have stripped the MULTI_EXIT_DISC to form one, to advertise them. Others in the AS will then use IGP cost to further resolve which exit point to use. It make a difference when the route is the aggregate route of another major provider. IGP cost yields what ISPs call "hot potatoe routing" and MED selects among multiple heavily loaded provider interconnects. [Aside: Having a missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC default to infinity would do exactly what the ISPs want it to do in the first place and be a lot easier to explain but we didn't fix that 2-3 years ago when the issue came up even though we had WG consensus that it was the right thing to do. The authors didn't act on it at the time (because Cisco didn't do it that way and the authors preferred to sit on the draft). At this point we might as well adequately document what we ended up with.... End of soapbox. I don't take myself all that seriously so others shouldn't either. :-)] After some more discussion on this, we have this text: In 5.1.4 replace: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). with: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. In 9.1.2.2 replace: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. with: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker didn't originate the route, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route. If the route is learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker originated the route, it is the local AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, then removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. There have been no objections to this, so we are at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64) MED for Originated Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that there is not need to specify default values for MED in the base draft. Discussion: This issue began when it was pointed out that we do not specify the default values for MED in the base draft. There were a variety of responses, but the consensus is that since this is not relevant for interoperability, this does not need to be in the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Clear up the text on aggregating with a MED. See the discussion for the text. Discussion: There is a proposal to relax this statement: "Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP." In his reply to the original mail, Curtis asserted that we should leave the MED rules alone, but perhaps we could relax the NEXT_HOP statement. This was revisited in the "aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP" thread. Yakov suggested we replace: Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP. If the aggregation occurs as part of the update process, routes with different NEXT_HOP values can be aggregated when announced through an external BGP session. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, according to the following rules: with: Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, according to the following rules: NEXT_HOP: When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route SHALL identify an interface on the router that performs the aggregation. This met with agreement. Dimitry asked if the "Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DESC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated." sentance was unnecessary since it should be a matter of local policy. Jeff replied that it has been mentioned that removing this stipulation can cause routing loops. We are at consensus with this issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Since we have two implementations of this method, secion 6.8 stays in the specification. Discussion: Jonathan opened this discussion with: The part in the draft about complex AS path aggregation could/should be deleted. The current draft implies that when aggregating, for example (1st): 1 2 4 3 w/ 3 4 6 5 and 5 6 7 8 then 1 2 {3 4 5 6} 7 8 ...would be OK AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: (2nd)putting ONLY the local AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating 1 giant set and adding the local AS as a seq. So he proposed we remove this to reflect current code. Jeff replied that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing complex aggregation, and there is no reason to remove this from the specification. Yakov responded that: Jonathan is certainly correct that the spec has to reflect current code. Therefore, unless there are at least two (interoperable) implementations that implement the algorithm described in "6.8 Complex AS_PATH aggregation", this section has to be removed (this is irrespective of whether there is something wrong, or nothing wrong with complex aggregation). With this in mind, if you implement this algorithm please speak up within a week. If within a week we wouldn't know that there are at least two implementations the section will be removed. And likewise, if we hear that there are at least two implementations, the section will stay. Jeff replied: I am also fine with removing it. I just don't think its necessary, especially if One Of These Days someone decides that running policy based on as-adjacencies would be a Nice Thing and fixes their implementation to support "complex" aggregation of paths. That said, I am aware of no one who implements this. As an aside, in the thread "last thought on complex aggregation" Jeff supplied: I finally remembered what was bothering me about removing complex aggregation from the spec. If it is removed, people who do conformance tests and some implementations may take this to mean "it shall be illegal to have an AS_PATH that contains a SEQUENCE of a particular type after a SET". This would make a perfectly ok AS_PATH into one that isn't legal, even if no implementation currently generates it. Jonathan replied that he thought the issue was moot since no one has implemented this. John replied that, although he is a bit uncomfortable in removing this from the spec, he doesn't see any harm in doing so. With this in mind, Yakov suggested we consider the issue closed. So we will wait a week from 10/17 to see if anyone chimes in. Siva responded that they have implemented this functionality. So we need one more...Ben responded that they support this at Marconi as well. So we have two implementations, the section stays in the spec. We are at consensus with this issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Move how AS_CONFED_SET & SEQUENCE affect route selection to the BGP Confederations document. Update the base draft to reflect this by changing section 9.1.2.2. Specific text is at the end of the discussion. Discussion: Jonathan brought up some questions on how current implementations count AS_SET and AS_CONFED_* There were a variety of resposnes to this, answering his questions. Curtis pointed out that this behavior is covered in: That's in 9.1.2.2: a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. Jonathan replied that this might be at odds with what Juniper does, although he was unsure, and asked for clarification. This was discussed in the "New Issue AS path" thread. Yakov proposed that: The issue of route selection in the present of confederations belongs *not* to the base spec, but to the spec that describes BGP Confeds. With this in mind I would suggest to change in 9.1.2.2 from a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. to a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set. and ask the authors of BGP Confeds to update their document to cover how the presence of confeds impact route selection. This met with agreement, this issue is at conensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68) Outbound Loop Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: IFF we have two implementations, we'd consider including this in the base spec. Discussion: Jonathan brought up that: This paper (thanks Jeff) http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2000-08 indicates that it is better to do the loop detection outbound as well inbound. The current draft indicates that it only needs to be done inbound. IOS does it inbound as well as outbound. GateD/Juniper does it (did it ???) only inbound. So I propose we add: "An implementation MAY choose to not advertise routes to EBGP peers if these routes contain the AS of that peer in the AS path." after: "If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be stored in the Adj-RIB In, but unless the router is configured to accept routes with its own AS in the AS path, the route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." *If there is at least one other implementation that does outbound pruning/loop-detection.* Yakov pointed out that this is ONLY applicable to the base draft if there are multiple implementations doing this. This issue will only be considered if these implementors come forward by 10/25/02. Otherwise the issue will be considered closed. ============================================================================ Appendix A - Other Documents ============================================================================ Over the course of this discussion, a number of issues have been raised that the group though would be better dealt with in other documents. These additional documents, and their concomitant issues will be more fully addressed when the WG turns its focus to them. These projects are: 1) Update RFC 1772: Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet. This will probably entail a complete rewrite. 2) Update Route Reflector (2796) and Confederation (3065) RFC's regarding their impact on route selection. 3) Write a new document covering BGP Multipath. --z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Changelog.txt" CHANGELOG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.3 to v1.4 2002-10-22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: Appendix A - Other Documents 68) Outbound Loop Detection Updated: 8) Jitter Text 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* Moved to Consensus: 8) Jitter Text 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.2 to v1.3 2002-10-16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 64) MED for Originated Routes 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* List of issues that are NOT at consensus Updated: 8) Jitter Text 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 12) TCP Behavior Wording 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 34) Timer & Counter Definition 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 Moved FROM Consensus: 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 Moved to Consensus: 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 34) Timer & Counter Definition 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.2 to v1.2.1 2002-10-01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 63) Clarify MED Removal Text TOC) Added issues 62 and 63 to the table of contents. Moved to Consensus: 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.1.1 to v1.2 2002-10-01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text Updated: 1) IDR WG Charter 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasable Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text Moved to Consensus: 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer (closed in favor of issue 61) 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 59) Section 4.3 - Move text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.1 to v1.1.1 2002-09-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 5) Direct EBGP Peers Added the "consensus" line in the actual issue description. TOC) Added issue 61 to the table-of-contents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.0 to v1.1 2002-09-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes Updated: 5) Direct EBGP Peers 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section Moved to Consensus: 5) Direct EBGP Peers 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Sectioules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP --z6Eq5LdranGa6ru8-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA22233 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F30BD9122D; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:54:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C2E8D9125C; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:54:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F139122D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A9E695DD8D; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEB25DD8C for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA04998; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:51:10 -0700 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Cc: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 Message-ID: <20021022185110.G15049@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <200210191546.LAA06043@workhorse.fictitious.org> <108237014388.20021022174425@psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <108237014388.20021022174425@psg.com>; from zinin@psg.com on Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 05:44:25PM -0700 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > >> BTW, is there anyone maintaining the list of documents > >> that the WG should work on? > > > Were we supposed to do that? :-) > > > I remember 1) update 1772, 2) update RR and Confed re impact on route > > decision rules, 3) new BGP multipath document. The 1772 update would > > probably need to be a complete rewrite. > > > Did I miss any. > > > Its much easier to just say "put it in another document" and forget > > about it. :-) > > This WG would never do this, would it? ;) > > I guess we have to ask Andrew another favor :) > Andrew, would it be possible to have such a list in > your document? Done. Added in Appendix A of the forthcomming v1.4 edition. Andrew > Also, I'd like to suggest that the contents of this list > is reflected in the proposed WG charter. > > Thanks! > > Alex > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA19253 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E6A7D9125A; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A83819125B; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645839125A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 494D25DDB7; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202445DD95 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 1849fv-000OHu-00; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:47:07 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:44:25 -0700 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <108237014388.20021022174425@psg.com> To: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 In-Reply-To: <200210191546.LAA06043@workhorse.fictitious.org> References: <200210191546.LAA06043@workhorse.fictitious.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk >> BTW, is there anyone maintaining the list of documents >> that the WG should work on? > Were we supposed to do that? :-) > I remember 1) update 1772, 2) update RR and Confed re impact on route > decision rules, 3) new BGP multipath document. The 1772 update would > probably need to be a complete rewrite. > Did I miss any. > Its much easier to just say "put it in another document" and forget > about it. :-) This WG would never do this, would it? ;) I guess we have to ask Andrew another favor :) Andrew, would it be possible to have such a list in your document? Also, I'd like to suggest that the contents of this list is reflected in the proposed WG charter. Thanks! Alex Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA11737 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 396A89124F; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0104191250; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1DE9124F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C876A5DECE; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3905DD99 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9MDnIi16525; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9MDnDC16514; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9MDnD409074; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:49:13 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 58: final Message-ID: <20021022094913.A9012@nexthop.com> References: <200210171609.g9HG9Am10149@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210171609.g9HG9Am10149@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:09:10AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:09:10AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The following changes reflect the consensus of the WG: This looks good. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA20462 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CB9A491248; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 953A291249; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBD291248 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:43:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 599245DFD7; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:43:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD03C5DFBD for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:43:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9LMhGm89427 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:43:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210212243.g9LMhGm89427@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: 11.3 BGP Multipath: final MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <31585.1035240196.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:43:16 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, It seems that we have a pretty clear consensus not to specify handling BGP multipath in the BGP base spec, but rather have a separate document that specifies how to handle BGP Multipath (all the postings on the list, except from Alex, agree to have it as a separate document). So, to reflect the consensus (and given that we don't need a "perfect" consensus), we close 11.3 (no BGP Multipath text in the base spec) and will have a separate document that will cover BGP Multipath. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA18241 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:03:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9386E91243; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5F27591244; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F91091243 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 56FBC5DFBC; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09325DF26 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:02:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ruwhite-u10.cisco.com (ruwhite-u10.cisco.com [64.102.48.251]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA20457; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:02:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> Reply-To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, curtis@fictitious.org, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Separate document for multipath - or part of BGP spec In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB76@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0210211801500.18933-100000@ruwhite-u10.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Agreed--let's leave this out of scope, and see about a seperate draft. Russ On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > I think you had proposed adding some type of blurb that basically said that > this is out of > scope. I think it is out of scope. I also think it is sufficiently complex > to warrant a > separate draft (doesn't one already exist?). > > Also, in Bgp multipath it is important that there is still only one route > selected for > re-advertisement. The text below does not indicate this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:58 PM > To: curtis@fictitious.org > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Separate document for multipath - or part of BGP spec > > > Curtis, > > > After some discussion initiated by Alex we ended up with the following > > text on BGP multipath. If we can get consensus on text to be added to > > the BGP base spec then we'll add text. If not, we'll omit any mention > > of BGP multipath. We seem to have rough consensus among a small > > number of people. > > In addition to getting consensus we also need (at least) two implementations > of the text. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to include it in the BGP base > spec. With this in mind I would appreciate if folks who implement something > along the lines of the text below drop me an e-mail. > > Yakov. > > > > > Curtis > > > > > > [new subesection] > > > > BGP specifies how to select the single best route. OSPF > > specifically defines procedures for handling equal cost multipath > > (ECMP) [cite OSPF]. The same technique has been applied to ISIS. > > A similar technique has been used with BGP. Variations exist but > > the decision to support BGP multipath, the specific variation of > > BGP multipath, or not to support it, does not affect > > interoperability. > > > > A naive implementations of ECMP can cause severe performance > > degradation for TCP flows. To avoid this, implementations of BGP > > multipath SHOULD maintain packet ordering within microflows as > > described in [cite rfc2991, rfc2992]. > > > > BGP multipath, if implemented, SHOULD be disabled by default. > > > > In addition to IGP multipath (OSPF ECMP and ISIS equivalent), there > > are two variations of BGP multipath described here. A BGP > > implementation may offer both, either one, or neither variation of > > BGP multipath. Other variations of BGP multipath may exist, but no > > guarantees can be made in this protocol specification of their > > properties or impact on interoperability. > > > > Where IGP multipath is used, there is an interaction with BGP > > learned routes. The lookup of a BGP NEXT_HOP in the IGP can > > result in the selection of an IGP multipath entry. This is not a > > variation of BGP multipath. When this occurs, one BGP route is > > slected as the best but there is more than one way to reach the BGP > > NEXT_HOP via the IGP. > > > > In one variation of BGP multipath, a set of more than one IBGP > > routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a > > destination and are an equal IGP cost away from a second set of one > > or more routers. BGP multipath is applicable to the latter set of > > routers. Without BGP multipath, BGP would pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of > > the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP > > Identifier) and use only that BGP route. With BGP multipath, BGP > > uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of more than one of these equal cost > > advertisements, yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Each BGP > > NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop if > > IGP multipath is in use). > > > > The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP > > multipath are external and learned by a single BGP peer. Without > > BGP multipath this peer would select only one of the BGP routes and > > obtain only one BGP NEXT_HOP. With BGP multipath, more than one > > equal cost route is selected yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. > > Seldom does IGP multipath come into play when looking up an EBGP > > NEXT_HOP but could in principle be applicable. > > > > If in EBGP multipath traffic is split among routers in difference > > AS, an aggregate SHOULD be formed so as to propogate a route with > > an accurate AS_PATH. If the resulting aggregate is not more > > specific than the components, the AS_SET SHOULD NOT be dropped. > > > > The decsion point for multipath is after step "d" in Section > > 9.1.2.2 (prefer externally learned routes). IBGP learned and EBGP > > learned routes MUST NOT be combined in multipath. If the multipath > > decision is prior to "d", then two routers each with an external > > peering would form a routing loop. > > > > The decision point for multipath is generally after step "e" in > > Section 9.1.2.2. Some relaxation of the "equal cost" rule (also > > applicable to IGP multipath) is possible. In addition to the equal > > cost BGP NEXT_HOPS available at BGP route selection, if the IGP > > next hop for other BGP NEXT_HOPs are of lower cost, then those may > > be used as well. This relaxation of the step "e" is possible but > > is not widely implemented (and may not be implemented at all). > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03764 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 181A29121B; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D603D9123B; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:42:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD919121B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B8EF25DFCC; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A415DFCA for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9LHfxw91759; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9LHftC91752; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9LHftK05424; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:55 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 Message-ID: <20021021134155.A5378@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB8D@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> <200210200032.g9K0Wim74328@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210200032.g9K0Wim74328@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:32:44PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:32:44PM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker > advertises to its peers only those routes that it > itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP > route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in > forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. I can live with this. > Yakov. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28035 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:01:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B8B9791238; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 494549123B; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C3591238 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E53D25DFC3; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D955DFC2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9LG0Am54270; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:00:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210211600.g9LG0Am54270@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 66 (Complex AS Path Aggregating) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:39 EDT." <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F92@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <88591.1035216010.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:00:10 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Ben, > Yakov: > We do support "Complex AS Path Aggregation" at Marconi. Thanks !!! With this in mind, issue 66 is closed (as we do have at least two implementations). The section 6.8 stays in the spec. Yakov. > > Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:35 AM > > To: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: issue 66 (Complex AS Path Aggregating) > > > > > > Folks, > > > > So far we heard of just one implementation. Unless we hear about > > one more implementation by this Thursday, section 6.8 ("Complex > > AS Path Aggregation") will be removed from the spec. Likewise, > > if we hear of least one more implementation by this Thursday, > > section 6.8 will stay. > > > > Yakov. > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27792 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A91EC91235; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 76F4991238; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892E991235 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5C90A5DFC5; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53DA5DFC3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12194; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17351; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4W8J7G28>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:41 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F92@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 66 (Complex AS Path Aggregating) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:56:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov: We do support "Complex AS Path Aggregation" at Marconi. Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:35 AM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 66 (Complex AS Path Aggregating) > > > Folks, > > So far we heard of just one implementation. Unless we hear about > one more implementation by this Thursday, section 6.8 ("Complex > AS Path Aggregation") will be removed from the spec. Likewise, > if we hear of least one more implementation by this Thursday, > section 6.8 will stay. > > Yakov. > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23161 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 435E791229; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 153AA9122C; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942BD91229 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7FA8A5DF81; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E557E5DEF7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:34:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9LEYUm48542 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 07:34:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210211434.g9LEYUm48542@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 66 (Complex AS Path Aggregating) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <73374.1035210870.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 07:34:30 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, So far we heard of just one implementation. Unless we hear about one more implementation by this Thursday, section 6.8 ("Complex AS Path Aggregation") will be removed from the spec. Likewise, if we hear of least one more implementation by this Thursday, section 6.8 will stay. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA16912 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E724B9120A; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:46:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A2CC991224; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:46:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43009120A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0767D5DFB0; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B443F5DFAE for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8P4S>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:45:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B02C7C584@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11.2 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:45:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk ok -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 8:33 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 Jonathan, > ...except for what Jeff raised--I think we should remove > "(other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs" > > :-) ok, so how about the following: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. Yakov. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Natale, Jonathan [mailto:JNatale@celoxnetworks.com] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:05 PM > To: 'Yakov Rekhter'; idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11.2 > > > that would be fine > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:44 PM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 11.2 > > > 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to close > this > issue: > > In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker > advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it > communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it > itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP > route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in > forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this > document. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA19784 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:41:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A7A3791217; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7369691222; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EDC191217 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:40:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 319DA5DF0C; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:40:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915F15DF0A for <idr@merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9K0eQm74458; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:40:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210200040.g9K0eQm74458@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: "Michael C. Cambria" <cambria@fid4.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:35 EDT." <20021018173335.R24715@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <66132.1035074426.1@juniper.net> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:40:26 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > Michael, > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Michael C. Cambria wrote: > > Doesn't injecting a route into BGP make that route a BGP route? > > If it does, then there's no issue and I'm overly hung up about the > words. I typically think of a bgp route as one that has come from > BGP. When you inject a route, you're taking a non-bgp route and > redistributing it. and thus it becomes a BGP route. yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA19517 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 985EF91205; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6E4C591217; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DF391205 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3EBE95DF03; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE515DEFE for <idr@merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9K0aKm74390; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:36:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210200036.g9K0aKm74390@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:52:54 EDT." <20021018165254.O24715@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <65579.1035074180.1@juniper.net> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:36:20 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > Yakov, > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:43:40PM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to > > close this issue: > > > > In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker > > advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it > > communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it > > Why only neighboring as's? > > > itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP > > route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in > > forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. > > Are we specifically trying to say that the process of injecting > a route into bgp is outside the scope of the bgp protocol document? There is some text in 9.4 on the subject of originating BGP routes. In general redistribution of non-BGP routes (e.g., IGP routes) into BGP is clearly outside the scope of the base spec (we've been through this more than once). > If not, the parenthesized text needs to be tweaked. With the above in mind, do you still see the need for the parenthesized text needs to be tweaked ? If yes, please proposed the replacement. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA19365 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8B8ED9120C; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5971F91205; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64A59120C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AD0E35DF06; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E00E5DEEE for <idr@merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9K0Wim74328; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:32:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210200032.g9K0Wim74328@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:08:43 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB8D@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <65130.1035073964.1@juniper.net> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:32:44 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > ...except for what Jeff raised--I think we should remove > "(other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs" > > :-) ok, so how about the following: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. Yakov. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Natale, Jonathan [mailto:JNatale@celoxnetworks.com] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:05 PM > To: 'Yakov Rekhter'; idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11.2 > > > that would be fine > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:44 PM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 11.2 > > > 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to close this > issue: > > In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker > advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it > communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it > itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP > route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in > forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA20538 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3E6F591218; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0E54491234; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D6191218 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4C5305DEC2; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD225DE1A for <idr@merit.edu>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06043; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:46:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210191546.LAA06043@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 11.2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:48:31 PDT." <19392003494.20021018144831@psg.com> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:46:40 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <19392003494.20021018144831@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes: > Friday, October 18, 2002, 2:17:44 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > [...] > > Its been pointed out to me that this may be a case of having the > > "route redistribution question" discussed again. If route origination > > is clearly covered in the yet-to-be-released draft, this is probably cool. > > BTW, is there anyone maintaining the list of documents > that the WG should work on? > > Alex Were we supposed to do that? :-) I remember 1) update 1772, 2) update RR and Confed re impact on route decision rules, 3) new BGP multipath document. The 1772 update would probably need to be a complete rewrite. Did I miss any. Its much easier to just say "put it in another document" and forget about it. :-) Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00167 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 835E991324; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:21:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 548C091325; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:21:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9BF91324 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 73C395DE93; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mcambria.fid4.com (h006097296569.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.202.75]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B385DE81 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fid4.com (mcambria.fid4.com [172.16.8.1]) by mcambria.fid4.com (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9J1Hhtq038929; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:17:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cambria@fid4.com) Message-ID: <3DB0B2B7.7020504@fid4.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:17:43 -0400 From: "Michael C. Cambria" <cambria@fid4.com> Organization: U n o r g a n i z e d User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020818 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@merit.edu Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Subject: Re: issue 11.2 References: <200210182043.g9IKhem19665@merlot.juniper.net> <20021018165254.O24715@nexthop.com> <3DB07702.4090405@fid4.com> <20021018173335.R24715@nexthop.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Michael C. Cambria wrote: [deleted] > >>The >>route now lives in Loc-RIB, and other peers will see it as a BGP route, >>with attributes (e.g. Origin=IGP or Origin=Incomplete, depending on how >>the route was "injected" into BGP.) > > > Its the interaction between Loc-Rib and our documented process in 9.4 > that bothers me. 9.4 says that we put a route through the decision > process - logically as if we had a "routing table peer". I read 9.4 as implying an Adj_Rib_in for locally originated routes (e.g. via network or redistribute commands). This is how I read what you refer to above as a logical "routing table peer". What to set the attributes to are covered in -17 (plus the resolved issues list being kept.) At this point, don't we have an 'Adj-Rib-In' on which section 9.1 can be invoked? > However, > this route may depend on what BGP would chose as its best route. > Potentially a circular dependency. I don't see this. What am I missing? How I understand things is described below: Using a (logical) Adj-Rib-In for locally originated routes, you should be able to invoke the decision process as if an UPDATE was received. I conceed that I am doing some handwaving. Reading 9.1.1 literally, one wouldn't calculate a degress of preference at all (i.e. invoke phase 1) since no UPDATE was received. The text in this section also doesn't mention anything about locally originated routes, while explicitly describing what to do for both internal and external peers. That said, even though no mention in 9.1.1 of locally originated routes is made, the entire section allows for "local policy" to determine the degree of preference. For example, locally injected routes are set to degree of preference of 'x'. The value for 'x' can be hardcoded or user configured, or whatever. Phase 2 starts from there. The "best" BGP route, locally originated or from a real peer (internal or external) is chosen. This makes it to Loc-Rib. Yakov's proposed text takes care of phase 3. As far as the scope of the draft is concerned, if the Loc-Rib route is used for forwarding, the route can be advertised to a peer. MikeC Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA18235 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:50:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3542B9131D; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CC3E19131E; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D919131D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:50:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 251845DE37; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:50:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F070C5DDFF for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 182f0u-000NWf-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:50:37 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:48:31 -0700 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <19392003494.20021018144831@psg.com> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 In-Reply-To: <20021018171744.Q24715@nexthop.com> References: <200210182043.g9IKhem19665@merlot.juniper.net> <20021018165254.O24715@nexthop.com> <20021018171744.Q24715@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Friday, October 18, 2002, 2:17:44 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: [...] > Its been pointed out to me that this may be a case of having the > "route redistribution question" discussed again. If route origination > is clearly covered in the yet-to-be-released draft, this is probably cool. BTW, is there anyone maintaining the list of documents that the WG should work on? Alex Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA17198 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 304AE9131B; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id F18D19131C; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED39B9131B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C85C15DDFF; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DB65DDEE for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9ILXdf37950; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9ILXZC37939; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9ILXZ928340; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:35 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Michael C. Cambria" <cambria@fid4.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 Message-ID: <20021018173335.R24715@nexthop.com> References: <200210182043.g9IKhem19665@merlot.juniper.net> <20021018165254.O24715@nexthop.com> <3DB07702.4090405@fid4.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3DB07702.4090405@fid4.com>; from cambria@fid4.com on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:02:58PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Michael, On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Michael C. Cambria wrote: > Doesn't injecting a route into BGP make that route a BGP route? If it does, then there's no issue and I'm overly hung up about the words. I typically think of a bgp route as one that has come from BGP. When you inject a route, you're taking a non-bgp route and redistributing it. > The > route now lives in Loc-RIB, and other peers will see it as a BGP route, > with attributes (e.g. Origin=IGP or Origin=Incomplete, depending on how > the route was "injected" into BGP.) Its the interaction between Loc-Rib and our documented process in 9.4 that bothers me. 9.4 says that we put a route through the decision process - logically as if we had a "routing table peer". However, this route may depend on what BGP would chose as its best route. Potentially a circular dependency. > MikeC -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA16587 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id EBCA39131A; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BCF6F9131B; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2155D9131A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 101525DE14; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mcambria.fid4.com (h006097296569.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.202.75]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921025DDFF for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fid4.com (mcambria3.avayactc.com [199.93.238.136]) by mcambria.fid4.com (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9ILIJtq038659 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:18:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cambria@fid4.com) Message-ID: <3DB07702.4090405@fid4.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:02:58 -0400 From: "Michael C. Cambria" <cambria@fid4.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020819 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 References: <200210182043.g9IKhem19665@merlot.juniper.net> <20021018165254.O24715@nexthop.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Yakov, > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:43:40PM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > >>Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to >>close this issue: >> >> In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker >> advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it >> communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it > > > Why only neighboring as's? > > >> itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP >> route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in >> forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. > > > Are we specifically trying to say that the process of injecting > a route into bgp is outside the scope of the bgp protocol document? Doesn't injecting a route into BGP make that route a BGP route? The route now lives in Loc-RIB, and other peers will see it as a BGP route, with attributes (e.g. Origin=IGP or Origin=Incomplete, depending on how the route was "injected" into BGP.) MikeC Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA16325 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2E86D91319; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 051639131B; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:18:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1570B91319 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E2ECE5DDEE; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287795DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9ILHmP37478; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:17:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9ILHiC37471; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:17:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9ILHi128175; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:17:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:17:44 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 Message-ID: <20021018171744.Q24715@nexthop.com> References: <200210182043.g9IKhem19665@merlot.juniper.net> <20021018165254.O24715@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021018165254.O24715@nexthop.com>; from jhaas@nexthop.com on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:52:54PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:52:54PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Are we specifically trying to say that the process of injecting > a route into bgp is outside the scope of the bgp protocol document? Its been pointed out to me that this may be a case of having the "route redistribution question" discussed again. If route origination is clearly covered in the yet-to-be-released draft, this is probably cool. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15795 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4EF4A91317; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1C0B391318; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CF891317 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6F9DE5DD9A; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105ED5DE37 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8GLT>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:08:43 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB8D@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11.2 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:08:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk ...except for what Jeff raised--I think we should remove "(other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs" :-) -----Original Message----- From: Natale, Jonathan [mailto:JNatale@celoxnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:05 PM To: 'Yakov Rekhter'; idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11.2 that would be fine -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:44 PM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 11.2 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to close this issue: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15624 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 429ED91316; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:05:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0DB5391317; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:05:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED1C91316 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7541E5DDFF; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2255DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8GLM>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:05:26 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB8B@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11.2 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:05:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk that would be fine -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:44 PM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 11.2 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to close this issue: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA14889 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A6BA991314; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6DC1891316; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255E191314 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 08D715DE14; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332C75DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9IKqw336678; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:52:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9IKqsC36671; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:52:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9IKqsG27975; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:52:54 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11.2 Message-ID: <20021018165254.O24715@nexthop.com> References: <200210182043.g9IKhem19665@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210182043.g9IKhem19665@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:43:40PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:43:40PM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to > close this issue: > > In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker > advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it > communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it Why only neighboring as's? > itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP > route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in > forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. Are we specifically trying to say that the process of injecting a route into bgp is outside the scope of the bgp protocol document? If not, the parenthesized text needs to be tweaked. > Yakov. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA14334 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A74C291313; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 725A791314; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED69E91313 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CA71E5DE14; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD455DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9IKhem19665 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:43:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210182043.g9IKhem19665@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 11.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <83210.1034973820.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:43:40 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to close this issue: In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06617 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6CCB791214; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3CA2291312; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E6191214 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9A26A5DE44; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A67C5DE01 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9IIPvm07439; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:25:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210181825.g9IIPvm07439@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 63 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:20:52 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB84@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <31518.1034965557.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:25:57 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > What will neighborAS(n) return the if the route is learned via IBGP and the > other IBGP speaker originated the route? (0 ???) the local AS. with this in mind, (and taking into account your editorial comments) here is proposed text: In 5.1.4 replace: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). with: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. In 9.1.2.2 replace: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. with: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker didn't originate the route, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route. If the route is learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker originated the route, it is the local AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, then removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03841 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 201629130E; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CEC4191311; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497199130E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 309F65DE61; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B625DE44 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8FKF>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:37:29 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB87@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: New Issue - Outbound Loop Detection Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:37:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, OK, you are correct on both counts. -Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:32 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: New Issue - Outbound Loop Detection Jonathan, > This paper (thanks Jeff) > http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2 > 000-08 > indicates that it is better to do the loop detection outbound as well > inbound. The current draft indicates that it only needs to be done inbound. > IOS does it inbound as well as outbound. GateD/Juniper does it (did it ???) > only inbound. > > So I propose we add: > "An implementation MAY choose to not advertise routes to EBGP peers if > these routes contain the AS of that peer in the AS path." > after: > "If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may > be stored in the Adj-RIB In, but unless the router is configured to > accept routes with its own AS in the AS path, the route shall not be > passed to the BGP Decision Process." First of all, if we add the text you proposed it should go into 9.1.3, and not in 9 (as Section 9 deals with processing UPDATE messages, while Seciton 9.1.3 deals with advertising routes to peers. Second, we could add this sentence only if there are at least two implementations that support it. So, folks who implement the outbound loop detection please drop an e-mail within a week. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03623 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 801F491310; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 537719130E; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA79D91311 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:32:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B429B5DE61; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:32:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20ACF5DE44 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:32:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9IHWmm02494; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210181732.g9IHWmm02494@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 63 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:29:33 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB85@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7754.1034962368.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:32:48 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > I suggest replacing "redistributing" with "re-advertising" to reflect more > recent common usage. > > also change: > "BGP learned routes, them" > to: > "BGP learned routes, then" accepted. yakov. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:06 PM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 63 > > > 63) Clarify MED Removal Text > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Following suggestion from Curtis, here are the changes: > > In 5.1.4 replace: > > An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the > value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. > If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of > preference of the route and performing route selection (decision > process phases 1 and 2). > > with: > > An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the > value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. > This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference > of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases > 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. > > In 9.1.2.2 replace: > > Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor > AS from which the route was received. > > with: > > Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the > neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is > learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other > IBGP speaker learned the route, not the local AS. > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing > a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be > considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them > removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared > to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose > MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. > Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the > comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the > MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to > cause route loops. > > In the absence of objections I'll make the above changes. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03544 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6FE9F9130F; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3A85191310; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CED9130F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 77A725DE61; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109985DE6C for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:31:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9IHVtm02428; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210181731.g9IHVtm02428@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: New Issue - Outbound Loop Detection In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:17:22 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB83@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7265.1034962315.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:31:55 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > This paper (thanks Jeff) > http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2000-08 > indicates that it is better to do the loop detection outbound as well > inbound. The current draft indicates that it only needs to be done inbound. > IOS does it inbound as well as outbound. GateD/Juniper does it (did it ???) > only inbound. > > So I propose we add: > "An implementation MAY choose to not advertise routes to EBGP peers if these > routes contain the AS of that peer in the AS path." > after: > "If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be > stored in the Adj-RIB In, but unless the router is configured to accept > routes with its own AS in the AS path, the route shall not be passed to > the BGP Decision Process." First of all, if we add the text you proposed it should go into 9.1.3, and not in 9 (as Section 9 deals with processing UPDATE messages, while Seciton 9.1.3 deals with advertising routes to peers. Second, we could add this sentence only if there are at least two implementations that support it. So, folks who implement the outbound loop detection please drop an e-mail within a week. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03373 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2AD509130D; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E1F069130E; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5282A9130D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 350A45DE61; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98735DE44 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8FJD>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:29:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB85@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 63 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:29:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I suggest replacing "redistributing" with "re-advertising" to reflect more recent common usage. also change: "BGP learned routes, them" to: "BGP learned routes, then" -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:06 PM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 63 63) Clarify MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following suggestion from Curtis, here are the changes: In 5.1.4 replace: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). with: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. In 9.1.2.2 replace: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. with: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route, not the local AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. In the absence of objections I'll make the above changes. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02947 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:22:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id ABC879130C; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6CA1091312; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819D59130C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:20:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 35C075DE67; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:20:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9B65DE45 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8F2F>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:20:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB84@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 63 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:20:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk What will neighborAS(n) return the if the route is learned via IBGP and the other IBGP speaker originated the route? (0 ???) -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:06 PM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 63 63) Clarify MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following suggestion from Curtis, here are the changes: In 5.1.4 replace: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). with: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. In 9.1.2.2 replace: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. with: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route, not the local AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. In the absence of objections I'll make the above changes. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02737 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:18:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 18C8F9130A; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:18:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1F2729130B; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3819B9130A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 145385DE45; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACB15DE44 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8FHY>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:17:23 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB83@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: New Issue - Outbound Loop Detection Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:17:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This paper (thanks Jeff) http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2000-08 indicates that it is better to do the loop detection outbound as well inbound. The current draft indicates that it only needs to be done inbound. IOS does it inbound as well as outbound. GateD/Juniper does it (did it ???) only inbound. So I propose we add: "An implementation MAY choose to not advertise routes to EBGP peers if these routes contain the AS of that peer in the AS path." after: "If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be stored in the Adj-RIB In, but unless the router is configured to accept routes with its own AS in the AS path, the route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." *If there is at least one other implementation that does outbound pruning/loop-detection.* Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02149 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:08:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id EEBD191309; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BBFF19130B; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA6791309 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id F0EA95DE44; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:06:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BF95DE01 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:06:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9IH6Fm00248 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210181706.g9IH6Fm00248@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <97396.1034960775.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:06:15 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk 63) Clarify MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following suggestion from Curtis, here are the changes: In 5.1.4 replace: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). with: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. In 9.1.2.2 replace: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. with: Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route, not the local AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. In the absence of objections I'll make the above changes. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01275 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7A1A091306; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4738291307; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8149191306 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 62F995DE44; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C310B5DE01 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9IGrsm98888; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210181653.g9IGrsm98888@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8: final text In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:38:32 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB75@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <92776.1034960034.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:53:54 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > The IOS defaults are 5 seconds for MinRouteAdvertisementInterval for IBGP > and 30 seconds for > EBGP(not sure what these are for Juniper, my guess is 30 for both). This > makes sense to me > since for IBGP you are more concerned with convergence, whereas for EBGP you > are more > concerned with stability. But I'm not sure if this could effect > interoperability, but if it > is and the involved implementations' timers were not configurable then there > might be a > problem. > > I propose we change: > "An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, > and MAY allow > the other timers to be configurable." > to: > "An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable > on a per peer > basis, and SHOULD allow the other timers to be configurable on a per peer > basis. How about the following: An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable on a per peer basis, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. Yakov. > > (RFC1771 has "An implementation of BGP MUST allow these timers to be > configurable.") > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:23 AM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 8: final text > > > Folks, > > Here is the final text for the BGP Timers section: > > BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time > (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval > (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see > Section 9.2.1.1). > > The suggested default value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 > seconds. > > The suggested default value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. > > The suggested default value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of > the Hold Time. > > The suggested default value for the MinASOriginationInterval is > 15 seconds. > > The suggested default value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval > is 30 seconds. > > An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be > configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. > > To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages > by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be > applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, > Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A > given BGP speaker may apply the same jitter to each of these > quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates > are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per > peer" basis. > > The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer > is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. > > With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00646 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E6D7691305; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A7D6C91306; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C1091305 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 14D4E5DE44; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7420C5DE01 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9IGhHm98080; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:43:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210181643.g9IGhHm98080@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai." <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 66 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:39:20 +0530." <55E277B99171E041ABF5F4B1C6DDCA06A9069A@haritha.hclt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <88797.1034959397.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:43:17 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Siva, > Hello, > > We have implemented this. Ok. So far we have one implementation of complex AS path aggregation. We need (at least) one more to keep it in the base spec. Yakov. > > Siva > (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:15 PM > > To: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: issue 66 > > > > > > 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: Do we remove a section of the spec that has to do > > with an aggregation > > scheme that is rarely used? > > > > Discussion: > > > > Jonathan opened this discussion with: > > > > The part in the draft about complex AS path aggregation > > could/should be > > deleted. The current draft implies that when aggregating, > > for example > > (1st): > > > > 1 2 4 3 > > > > w/ > > > > 3 4 6 5 > > > > and > > > > 5 6 7 8 > > > > then > > > > 1 2 {3 4 5 6} 7 8 > > > > ...would be OK > > > > AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: > > (2nd)putting ONLY the local > > AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating > > 1 giant set and > > adding the local AS as a seq. > > > > So he proposed we remove this to reflect current code. > > > > Jeff replied that there is absolutely nothing wrong with > > doing complex > > aggregation, and there is no reason to remove this from the > > specification. > > > > Jonathan is certainly correct that the spec has to reflect current > > code. Therefore, unless there are at least two (interoperable) > > implementations that implement the algorithm described in "6.8 > > Complex AS_PATH aggregation", this section has to be removed (this > > is irrespective of whether there is something wrong, or nothing > > wrong with complex aggregation). With this in mind, if you implement > > this algorithm please speak up within a week. If within a week we > > wouldn't know that there are at least two implementations the > > section will be removed. And likewise, if we hear that there are > > at least two implementations, the section will stay. > > > > Yakov. > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22270 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:16:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A9CA4912FA; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 74CBC912FB; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28204912FA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:15:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DFF235DE3F; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A095DDD4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9IEEwV26059; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9IEEsC26052; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9IEEs024942; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:54 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@axiowave.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 65 Message-ID: <20021018101454.G24715@nexthop.com> References: <EB5FFC72F183D411B3820006295734290125F4AE@r2d2.axiowave.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <EB5FFC72F183D411B3820006295734290125F4AE@r2d2.axiowave.com>; from dhaskin@axiowave.com on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:10:18AM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:10:18AM -0400, Dimitry Haskin wrote: > I propose to remove the above sentence from the text. Whether to aggregate > routes that were received with different MEDs or not is a local policy > decision that has no interoperability implication or breaks routing in any > way. It has been claimed by those who have more experience than me that you can end up with loops in some cases if you do this. No, I never got an example. > P.S. I am aware of implementations (I believe GateD one of them) that ignore > the above rule. That is also by knob. The "bgp" keyword on the aggregate clause forces aggregation to not aggregate routes with differing nexthops and med's. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22156 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 87E39912F8; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 551F8912FA; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8243912F8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C727A5DE48; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mail.alcatel.be (alc250.alcatel.be [195.207.101.250]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204715DE47 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (relay3 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alcatel.be (8.11.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g9IE6iE30603; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:06:44 +0200 Received: from alcatel.be ([138.203.142.14]) by Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002101816133931:7766 ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:13:39 +0200 Message-ID: <3DB016FA.2E6FC5CA@alcatel.be> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:13:15 +0200 From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: issue 61 References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB79@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/18/2002 16:13:39, Serialize by Router on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/18/2002 16:13:40, Serialize complete at 10/18/2002 16:13:40 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Thanks Jonathan this fully anwers the question. Hans. "Natale, Jonathan" wrote: > No, it would not be a loop (assuming the second router had an IGP route to > the same > destination) because the admin distance of IBGP is lower than the admin > distance of IGPs. > (I tried to get this added to the draft, but it was voted down). You'd have > to check with a > real Juniper guy, but I am pretty sure you can do this on Juniper too. Of > course you > could always create a routing loop by bad network design, particularly with > static > routes. > > The other issue in the scenario is that the received BGP route would not be > the active route, > so as the draft reads now it should not be re-advertised. (I also tried to > get this added to > the draft, and I think it was finally accepted). > > -----Original Message----- > From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > [mailto:hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:10 AM > To: BGP mailing list > Subject: Re: issue 61 > > I have some trouble in understanding part of the proposed text. " if the > interface address of the > router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is > the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the > NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that > is > used to reach the peer)." > > The way i understand this is: > We have a route in the routing database, whose next-hop happens to be equal > to the address of one of the iBGP peers. (who in this case must be an > internal BGP peer which is exactly one hop away). > > In this case we can avertise this route to this iBGP peer as long as we put > the next-hop field to the Ip-address which is assigned to our router on the > interface connecting us to the internal peer. > > But, if my way of understanding the text is correct, then i get the > impression we have created a routing loop, as we have announced a route to a > peer that actually is routed through that peer. Therefore I guess my > understanding of the text is wrong, and i hope that somebody can put me > straight here. > > thanks, > hans. > > Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > > 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: There was text suggested, but no discussion. > > > > Discussion: > > > > Jonathan began this thread with: > > > > I propose adding: > > > > "When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP > > speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router > > through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the > > route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of > the > > router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker > is > > the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the > > NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that > is > > used to reach the peer)." > > > > AFTER > > > > "When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > > NEXT_HOP." > > > > There has been no discussion on this. > > > > This is discussed in the "Next hop for redistributed routes" thread. > > > > Issue 14 closed in favor of this issue. > > > > In response to Yakov's call for input, Michael responded that: > > > > Section 5.1.3 explictly states what to do when originating to an > > etternal peer. #2 covers one hop away, #3 covers more than on hop away. > > #1 talks about sending to an iBGP peer, but only when propergating a > > route received from an eBGP peer. > > > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > > NEXT_HOP. > > > > > > Text similar to #2 shoud be added, in their own bullit items to #1 such > > as what was suggested by Jonathan Natale (text is above.) > > > > Replace: > > > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > > NEXT_HOP. > > > > with: > > > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, if the route is > > not locally originated the BGP speaker should not modify the > > NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to > > announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. When announcing a > > locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > > should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router > > through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; > > if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface > > address of the router through which the announced network is > > reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then > > the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP > > address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the > > peer). > > > > In the absence of objections I'll make the above change. > > > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21702 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 386C9912F9; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DB5B6912F8; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33FF912F9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8D1265DE3F; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from bridge.axiowave.com (unknown [64.115.125.242]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71F15DDD4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <EB5FFC72F183D411B3820006295734290125F4AE@r2d2.axiowave.com> From: Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@axiowave.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 65 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > > 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > I would suggest to replace: > > [snip] > > with: > > Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT > be aggregated. > I propose to remove the above sentence from the text. Whether to aggregate routes that were received with different MEDs or not is a local policy decision that has no interoperability implication or breaks routing in any way. It also is a local policy choice whether to advertise MED and what MED value to use with a newly generated aggregate route. Dimitry P.S. I am aware of implementations (I believe GateD one of them) that ignore the above rule. Which is fine.. except that those implementations don't pass some well known conformance tests. > Path attributes that have different type codes can not be > aggregated > together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, > according to the following rules: > > NEXT_HOP: When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP > attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route SHALL > identify an interface on the router that performs the > aggregation. > > In the absence of objections I am going to make the above change. > > Yakov. > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21696 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:10:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0F1E5912F7; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D0843912F9; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9E0912F7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C900B5DE4C; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581575DE28 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT81JK>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:08:05 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB79@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be'" <hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be>, BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: issue 61 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:08:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk No, it would not be a loop (assuming the second router had an IGP route to the same destination) because the admin distance of IBGP is lower than the admin distance of IGPs. (I tried to get this added to the draft, but it was voted down). You'd have to check with a real Juniper guy, but I am pretty sure you can do this on Juniper too. Of course you could always create a routing loop by bad network design, particularly with static routes. The other issue in the scenario is that the received BGP route would not be the active route, so as the draft reads now it should not be re-advertised. (I also tried to get this added to the draft, and I think it was finally accepted). -----Original Message----- From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be [mailto:hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:10 AM To: BGP mailing list Subject: Re: issue 61 I have some trouble in understanding part of the proposed text. " if the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer)." The way i understand this is: We have a route in the routing database, whose next-hop happens to be equal to the address of one of the iBGP peers. (who in this case must be an internal BGP peer which is exactly one hop away). In this case we can avertise this route to this iBGP peer as long as we put the next-hop field to the Ip-address which is assigned to our router on the interface connecting us to the internal peer. But, if my way of understanding the text is correct, then i get the impression we have created a routing loop, as we have announced a route to a peer that actually is routed through that peer. Therefore I guess my understanding of the text is wrong, and i hope that somebody can put me straight here. thanks, hans. Yakov Rekhter wrote: > 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: There was text suggested, but no discussion. > > Discussion: > > Jonathan began this thread with: > > I propose adding: > > "When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP > speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router > through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the > route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the > router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is > the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the > NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is > used to reach the peer)." > > AFTER > > "When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > NEXT_HOP." > > There has been no discussion on this. > > This is discussed in the "Next hop for redistributed routes" thread. > > Issue 14 closed in favor of this issue. > > In response to Yakov's call for input, Michael responded that: > > Section 5.1.3 explictly states what to do when originating to an > etternal peer. #2 covers one hop away, #3 covers more than on hop away. > #1 talks about sending to an iBGP peer, but only when propergating a > route received from an eBGP peer. > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > NEXT_HOP. > > > Text similar to #2 shoud be added, in their own bullit items to #1 such > as what was suggested by Jonathan Natale (text is above.) > > Replace: > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > NEXT_HOP. > > with: > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, if the route is > not locally originated the BGP speaker should not modify the > NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to > announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. When announcing a > locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router > through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; > if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface > address of the router through which the announced network is > reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then > the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP > address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the > peer). > > In the absence of objections I'll make the above change. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA20453 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 39221912F4; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 04341912F5; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404FB912F4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2041F5DE34; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED2D5DDD4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT811B>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:38 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB76@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Separate document for multipath - or part of BGP spec Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:48:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I think you had proposed adding some type of blurb that basically said that this is out of scope. I think it is out of scope. I also think it is sufficiently complex to warrant a separate draft (doesn't one already exist?). Also, in Bgp multipath it is important that there is still only one route selected for re-advertisement. The text below does not indicate this. -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:58 PM To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Separate document for multipath - or part of BGP spec Curtis, > After some discussion initiated by Alex we ended up with the following > text on BGP multipath. If we can get consensus on text to be added to > the BGP base spec then we'll add text. If not, we'll omit any mention > of BGP multipath. We seem to have rough consensus among a small > number of people. In addition to getting consensus we also need (at least) two implementations of the text. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to include it in the BGP base spec. With this in mind I would appreciate if folks who implement something along the lines of the text below drop me an e-mail. Yakov. > > Curtis > > > [new subesection] > > BGP specifies how to select the single best route. OSPF > specifically defines procedures for handling equal cost multipath > (ECMP) [cite OSPF]. The same technique has been applied to ISIS. > A similar technique has been used with BGP. Variations exist but > the decision to support BGP multipath, the specific variation of > BGP multipath, or not to support it, does not affect > interoperability. > > A naive implementations of ECMP can cause severe performance > degradation for TCP flows. To avoid this, implementations of BGP > multipath SHOULD maintain packet ordering within microflows as > described in [cite rfc2991, rfc2992]. > > BGP multipath, if implemented, SHOULD be disabled by default. > > In addition to IGP multipath (OSPF ECMP and ISIS equivalent), there > are two variations of BGP multipath described here. A BGP > implementation may offer both, either one, or neither variation of > BGP multipath. Other variations of BGP multipath may exist, but no > guarantees can be made in this protocol specification of their > properties or impact on interoperability. > > Where IGP multipath is used, there is an interaction with BGP > learned routes. The lookup of a BGP NEXT_HOP in the IGP can > result in the selection of an IGP multipath entry. This is not a > variation of BGP multipath. When this occurs, one BGP route is > slected as the best but there is more than one way to reach the BGP > NEXT_HOP via the IGP. > > In one variation of BGP multipath, a set of more than one IBGP > routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a > destination and are an equal IGP cost away from a second set of one > or more routers. BGP multipath is applicable to the latter set of > routers. Without BGP multipath, BGP would pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of > the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP > Identifier) and use only that BGP route. With BGP multipath, BGP > uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of more than one of these equal cost > advertisements, yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Each BGP > NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop if > IGP multipath is in use). > > The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP > multipath are external and learned by a single BGP peer. Without > BGP multipath this peer would select only one of the BGP routes and > obtain only one BGP NEXT_HOP. With BGP multipath, more than one > equal cost route is selected yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. > Seldom does IGP multipath come into play when looking up an EBGP > NEXT_HOP but could in principle be applicable. > > If in EBGP multipath traffic is split among routers in difference > AS, an aggregate SHOULD be formed so as to propogate a route with > an accurate AS_PATH. If the resulting aggregate is not more > specific than the components, the AS_SET SHOULD NOT be dropped. > > The decsion point for multipath is after step "d" in Section > 9.1.2.2 (prefer externally learned routes). IBGP learned and EBGP > learned routes MUST NOT be combined in multipath. If the multipath > decision is prior to "d", then two routers each with an external > peering would form a routing loop. > > The decision point for multipath is generally after step "e" in > Section 9.1.2.2. Some relaxation of the "equal cost" rule (also > applicable to IGP multipath) is possible. In addition to the equal > cost BGP NEXT_HOPS available at BGP route selection, if the IGP > next hop for other BGP NEXT_HOPs are of lower cost, then those may > be used as well. This relaxation of the step "e" is possible but > is not widely implemented (and may not be implemented at all). Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19879 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2CCD7912F3; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EA2E6912F4; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4029A912F3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 174465DE28; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92F35DDDC for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT81CJ>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:38:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB75@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 8: final text Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:38:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, The IOS defaults are 5 seconds for MinRouteAdvertisementInterval for IBGP and 30 seconds for EBGP(not sure what these are for Juniper, my guess is 30 for both). This makes sense to me since for IBGP you are more concerned with convergence, whereas for EBGP you are more concerned with stability. But I'm not sure if this could effect interoperability, but if it is and the involved implementations' timers were not configurable then there might be a problem. I propose we change: "An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable." to: "An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable on a per peer basis, and SHOULD allow the other timers to be configurable on a per peer basis. (RFC1771 has "An implementation of BGP MUST allow these timers to be configurable.") -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:23 AM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 8: final text Folks, Here is the final text for the BGP Timers section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested default value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested default value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested default value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested default value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested default value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker may apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per peer" basis. The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19563 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B87C8912F2; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8BED4912F3; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0898912F2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 878B55DE34; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CA35DE28 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9IDVx725133; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:31:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9IDVuC25126; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:31:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9IDVum24757; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:31:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:31:56 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8: final text Message-ID: <20021018093156.C24715@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB74@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB74@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>; from JNatale@celoxnetworks.com on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:09:45AM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:09:45AM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > Are you referring to the MinASOriginationInterval? I'm speaking of the two BGP timers, MinASOriginationInternal, MinRouteAdverInterval. One deals with the propagation of the routes from outside of an AS, the other deals with origination of routes in the AS. > I also don't think > anybody uses it. As far as the outdelay--that is not really mentioned in > the draft, right? outdelay is GateD's implementation of a delay timer for reachability announcements. As previously noted, one could consider it a replacement for *both* timers as one timer. > But I don't think either effects interoperability > though, so I'd say let's not change the spec based on these. These timers greatly affect convergence. See Craig and Abha's paper on the topic. http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2000-08 -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19114 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F309D912F1; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BE5CD912F2; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C16912F1 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5FE2E5DDF5; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9435DDDC for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9IDPKY24896; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9IDPHC24889; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9IDPEB24726; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:14 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: christophe preguica <Christophe.Preguica@alcatel.fr> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: MP-BGP for IPv4 and IPv6 Message-ID: <20021018092514.A24715@nexthop.com> References: <3DAFC506.5121FAB5@nmu.alcatel.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3DAFC506.5121FAB5@nmu.alcatel.fr>; from Christophe.Preguica@alcatel.fr on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:23:34AM +0200 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:23:34AM +0200, christophe preguica wrote: > I saw nothing about this issue. > Is it a good solution to configure an IPv6 address of peer 2 when > configuring a TCPv4 connection on peer 1 towards peer 2 ? > Is there another way ? Currently, configuration is the only way to solve this particular problem. (At least that I know of.) Cisco bypasses this particular problem and causes you to configure your v6 routing across a v6 peering session. > Christophe. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18186 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 44EAE912F0; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1441A912F1; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52348912F0 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3EC0E5DDDC; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD0E5DDD4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8D9N>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB74@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 8: final text Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Are you referring to the MinASOriginationInterval? I also don't think anybody uses it. As far as the outdelay--that is not really mentioned in the draft, right? So maybe the former should be deprecated, and maybe the latter should be added? But I don't think either effects interoperability though, so I'd say let's not change the spec based on these. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:18 AM To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8: final text On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:22:31AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. Generally agreed. But does anyone actually implement both timers? GateD and Juniper have outdelay. Cisco has neighbor advertisement-interval. In all cases, this is a general delay, not one that depends on whether the route is being propagated or originated. > Yakov. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18119 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A6ADB912EF; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 71F58912F0; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F87912EF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 929265DDE6; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ganesh.ctd.hctech.com (unknown [202.54.64.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0325DDDC for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by GANESH with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <48ZB94NR>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:36:54 +0530 Message-ID: <55E277B99171E041ABF5F4B1C6DDCA06A9069A@haritha.hclt.com> From: "Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai." <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 66 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:39:20 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hello, We have implemented this. Siva (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:15 PM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 66 > > > 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: Do we remove a section of the spec that has to do > with an aggregation > scheme that is rarely used? > > Discussion: > > Jonathan opened this discussion with: > > The part in the draft about complex AS path aggregation > could/should be > deleted. The current draft implies that when aggregating, > for example > (1st): > > 1 2 4 3 > > w/ > > 3 4 6 5 > > and > > 5 6 7 8 > > then > > 1 2 {3 4 5 6} 7 8 > > ...would be OK > > AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: > (2nd)putting ONLY the local > AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating > 1 giant set and > adding the local AS as a seq. > > So he proposed we remove this to reflect current code. > > Jeff replied that there is absolutely nothing wrong with > doing complex > aggregation, and there is no reason to remove this from the > specification. > > Jonathan is certainly correct that the spec has to reflect current > code. Therefore, unless there are at least two (interoperable) > implementations that implement the algorithm described in "6.8 > Complex AS_PATH aggregation", this section has to be removed (this > is irrespective of whether there is something wrong, or nothing > wrong with complex aggregation). With this in mind, if you implement > this algorithm please speak up within a week. If within a week we > wouldn't know that there are at least two implementations the > section will be removed. And likewise, if we hear that there are > at least two implementations, the section will stay. > > Yakov. > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA02475 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 05:11:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 86281912E7; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 05:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4F5C9912E9; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 05:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC811912E7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 05:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C4FE15DE03; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 05:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mail.alcatel.be (alc250.alcatel.be [195.207.101.250]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF065DDB2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 05:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (relay3 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alcatel.be (8.11.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g9I93pQ21619 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:03:51 +0200 Received: from alcatel.be ([138.203.142.14]) by Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002101811104552:4480 ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:10:45 +0200 Message-ID: <3DAFCFFE.8952EF84@alcatel.be> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:10:22 +0200 From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: issue 61 References: <200210171601.g9HG1qm09515@merlot.juniper.net> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/18/2002 11:10:45, Serialize by Router on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/18/2002 11:10:46, Serialize complete at 10/18/2002 11:10:46 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I have some trouble in understanding part of the proposed text. " if the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer)." The way i understand this is: We have a route in the routing database, whose next-hop happens to be equal to the address of one of the iBGP peers. (who in this case must be an internal BGP peer which is exactly one hop away). In this case we can avertise this route to this iBGP peer as long as we put the next-hop field to the Ip-address which is assigned to our router on the interface connecting us to the internal peer. But, if my way of understanding the text is correct, then i get the impression we have created a routing loop, as we have announced a route to a peer that actually is routed through that peer. Therefore I guess my understanding of the text is wrong, and i hope that somebody can put me straight here. thanks, hans. Yakov Rekhter wrote: > 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: There was text suggested, but no discussion. > > Discussion: > > Jonathan began this thread with: > > I propose adding: > > "When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP > speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router > through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the > route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the > router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is > the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the > NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is > used to reach the peer)." > > AFTER > > "When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > NEXT_HOP." > > There has been no discussion on this. > > This is discussed in the "Next hop for redistributed routes" thread. > > Issue 14 closed in favor of this issue. > > In response to Yakov's call for input, Michael responded that: > > Section 5.1.3 explictly states what to do when originating to an > etternal peer. #2 covers one hop away, #3 covers more than on hop away. > #1 talks about sending to an iBGP peer, but only when propergating a > route received from an eBGP peer. > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > NEXT_HOP. > > > Text similar to #2 shoud be added, in their own bullit items to #1 such > as what was suggested by Jonathan Natale (text is above.) > > Replace: > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been > explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the > NEXT_HOP. > > with: > > 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, if the route is > not locally originated the BGP speaker should not modify the > NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to > announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. When announcing a > locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker > should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router > through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; > if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface > address of the router through which the announced network is > reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then > the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP > address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the > peer). > > In the absence of objections I'll make the above change. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA00305 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F2DFD912E6; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:32:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7FC52912E8; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970C4912E6 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 54BBB5DDC8; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (colt-na6.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5085DDB2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nmu.alcatel.fr (tcmh80.nmu.alcatel.fr [139.54.143.3]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/NETFR) with ESMTP id g9I8UjWJ017192 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:30:45 +0200 Received: from nmu.alcatel.fr (houat [192.200.245.153]) by nmu.alcatel.fr (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA25885 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:29:24 +0200 (METDST) Message-ID: <3DAFC57A.9353027E@nmu.alcatel.fr> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:25:30 +0200 From: christophe preguica <Christophe.Preguica@alcatel.fr> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@merit.edu Subject: MP-BGP for IPv4 and IPv6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2B0943E13A9C759F4AF3B39C" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --------------2B0943E13A9C759F4AF3B39C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, it is specified on MP-BGP that any kind of route (both IPv4 and IPv6) can be advertised through a TCPv4 connection and ditto through a TCPv6 connection. But in case we have the following topology: ________________ ________________ |peer 1 | |peer2 | |144.20.20.1 |-------------------------|144.20.20.2 | |3ffe:400:100::1 | TCPv4 |3ffe:400:100::2 | |dual stack | |dual stack | |_______________| |_______________| An open message will be sent with both IPv4 and IPv6 capabilities. But when peer 1 receives an IPv6 route from peer 2 and has to advertise this route to other peers, it does not have the IPv6 address of peer 2 since the connection was made in IPv4: so no way to fill up the NH field of the MP_reach_NLRI in the update message. The BGP tunnel draft specifies the use of mapped addresses in this case (::ffff:144.20.20.2) which is a good solution for some scenarios but IPv6 packets will always be encapsulated in IPv4 to reach peer 2 even if there is an IPv6 path. Moreover, the BGP tunnel solution do not handle the case of sending IPv4 routes over a TCPv6 connection. I saw nothing about this issue. Is it a good solution to configure an IPv6 address of peer 2 when configuring a TCPv4 connection on peer 1 towards peer 2 ? Is there another way ? The best solution would be to only allow advertising IPv4 routes on TCPv4 connections but that is not what is specified... Kind Regards, Christophe. --------------2B0943E13A9C759F4AF3B39C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Hi, <p>it is specified on MP-BGP that any kind of route (both IPv4 and IPv6) <br>can be advertised through a TCPv4 connection and ditto through a TCPv6 <br>connection. <br>But in case we have the following topology: <p>________________ ________________ <br>|peer 1 | |peer2 | <br>|144.20.20.1 |-------------------------|144.20.20.2 | <br>|3ffe:400:100::1 | TCPv4 |3ffe:400:100::2 | <br>|dual stack | |dual stack | <br>|_______________| <tt></tt>|_______________| <p>An open message will be sent with both IPv4 and IPv6 capabilities. <br>But when peer 1 receives an IPv6 route from peer 2 and has to advertise <br>this route to other peers, <br>it does not have the IPv6 address of peer 2 since the connection was <br>made in IPv4: so no way to fill up the NH field <br>of the MP_reach_NLRI in the update message. <p>The BGP tunnel draft specifies the use of mapped addresses in this case <br>(::ffff:144.20.20.2) which is a good solution for some scenarios but <br>IPv6 packets will <br>always be encapsulated in IPv4 to reach peer 2 even if there is an IPv6 <br>path. Moreover, the BGP tunnel solution do not handle <br>the case of sending IPv4 routes over a TCPv6 connection. <p>I saw nothing about this issue. <br>Is it a good solution to configure an IPv6 address of peer 2 when <br>configuring a TCPv4 connection on peer 1 towards peer 2 ? <br>Is there another way ? <p>The best solution would be to only allow advertising IPv4 routes on <br>TCPv4 connections but that is not what is specified... <p>Kind Regards, <p>Christophe. <br> <br> </html> --------------2B0943E13A9C759F4AF3B39C-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29975 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:29:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 57BD9912E4; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1AED9912E5; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67109912E4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:28:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4E3395DDC0; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:28:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (colt-na6.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951AA5DDB2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:28:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nmu.alcatel.fr (tcmh80.nmu.alcatel.fr [139.54.143.3]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/NETFR) with ESMTP id g9I8SnWJ015721 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:28:49 +0200 Received: from nmu.alcatel.fr (houat [192.200.245.153]) by nmu.alcatel.fr (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA25794 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:27:28 +0200 (METDST) Message-ID: <3DAFC506.5121FAB5@nmu.alcatel.fr> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:23:34 +0200 From: christophe preguica <Christophe.Preguica@alcatel.fr> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@merit.edu Subject: MP-BGP for IPv4 and IPv6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi, it is specified on MP-BGP that any kind of route (both IPv4 and IPv6) can be advertised through a TCPv4 connection and ditto through a TCPv6 connection. But in case we have the following topology: ________________ ________________ |peer 1 | |peer2 | |144.20.20.1 |-------------------------|144.20.20.2 | |3ffe:400:100::1 | TCPv4 |3ffe:400:100::2 | |dual stack | |dual stack | |_______________| |_______________| An open message will be sent with both IPv4 and IPv6 capabilities. But when peer 1 receives an IPv6 route from peer 2 and has to advertise this route to other peers, it does not have the IPv6 address of peer 2 since the connection was made in IPv4: so no way to fill up the NH field of the MP_reach_NLRI in the update message. The BGP tunnel draft specifies the use of mapped addresses in this case (::ffff:144.20.20.2) which is a good solution for some scenarios but IPv6 packets will always be encapsulated in IPv4 to reach peer 2 even if there is an IPv6 path. Moreover, the BGP tunnel solution do not handle the case of sending IPv4 routes over a TCPv6 connection. I saw nothing about this issue. Is it a good solution to configure an IPv6 address of peer 2 when configuring a TCPv4 connection on peer 1 towards peer 2 ? Is there another way ? The best solution would be to only allow advertising IPv4 routes on TCPv4 connections but that is not what is specified... Kind Regards, Christophe. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA00008 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0A6BB912DE; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:58:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CBD38912DF; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8348B912DE for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 580895DED9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF88B5DDE1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HNwFm52783; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:58:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210172358.g9HNwFm52783@merlot.juniper.net> To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Separate document for multipath - or part of BGP spec In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:59:48 EDT." <200210171559.LAA87883@workhorse.fictitious.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <84071.1034899095.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:58:15 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, > After some discussion initiated by Alex we ended up with the following > text on BGP multipath. If we can get consensus on text to be added to > the BGP base spec then we'll add text. If not, we'll omit any mention > of BGP multipath. We seem to have rough consensus among a small > number of people. In addition to getting consensus we also need (at least) two implementations of the text. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to include it in the BGP base spec. With this in mind I would appreciate if folks who implement something along the lines of the text below drop me an e-mail. Yakov. > > Curtis > > > [new subesection] > > BGP specifies how to select the single best route. OSPF > specifically defines procedures for handling equal cost multipath > (ECMP) [cite OSPF]. The same technique has been applied to ISIS. > A similar technique has been used with BGP. Variations exist but > the decision to support BGP multipath, the specific variation of > BGP multipath, or not to support it, does not affect > interoperability. > > A naive implementations of ECMP can cause severe performance > degradation for TCP flows. To avoid this, implementations of BGP > multipath SHOULD maintain packet ordering within microflows as > described in [cite rfc2991, rfc2992]. > > BGP multipath, if implemented, SHOULD be disabled by default. > > In addition to IGP multipath (OSPF ECMP and ISIS equivalent), there > are two variations of BGP multipath described here. A BGP > implementation may offer both, either one, or neither variation of > BGP multipath. Other variations of BGP multipath may exist, but no > guarantees can be made in this protocol specification of their > properties or impact on interoperability. > > Where IGP multipath is used, there is an interaction with BGP > learned routes. The lookup of a BGP NEXT_HOP in the IGP can > result in the selection of an IGP multipath entry. This is not a > variation of BGP multipath. When this occurs, one BGP route is > slected as the best but there is more than one way to reach the BGP > NEXT_HOP via the IGP. > > In one variation of BGP multipath, a set of more than one IBGP > routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a > destination and are an equal IGP cost away from a second set of one > or more routers. BGP multipath is applicable to the latter set of > routers. Without BGP multipath, BGP would pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of > the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP > Identifier) and use only that BGP route. With BGP multipath, BGP > uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of more than one of these equal cost > advertisements, yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Each BGP > NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop if > IGP multipath is in use). > > The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP > multipath are external and learned by a single BGP peer. Without > BGP multipath this peer would select only one of the BGP routes and > obtain only one BGP NEXT_HOP. With BGP multipath, more than one > equal cost route is selected yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. > Seldom does IGP multipath come into play when looking up an EBGP > NEXT_HOP but could in principle be applicable. > > If in EBGP multipath traffic is split among routers in difference > AS, an aggregate SHOULD be formed so as to propogate a route with > an accurate AS_PATH. If the resulting aggregate is not more > specific than the components, the AS_SET SHOULD NOT be dropped. > > The decsion point for multipath is after step "d" in Section > 9.1.2.2 (prefer externally learned routes). IBGP learned and EBGP > learned routes MUST NOT be combined in multipath. If the multipath > decision is prior to "d", then two routers each with an external > peering would form a routing loop. > > The decision point for multipath is generally after step "e" in > Section 9.1.2.2. Some relaxation of the "equal cost" rule (also > applicable to IGP multipath) is possible. In addition to the equal > cost BGP NEXT_HOPS available at BGP route selection, if the IGP > next hop for other BGP NEXT_HOPs are of lower cost, then those may > be used as well. This relaxation of the step "e" is possible but > is not widely implemented (and may not be implemented at all). Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA29009 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 75036912DD; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:40:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4456C912DE; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:40:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22568912DD for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 069E05DED1; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCEB5DDE1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HNe2m51526; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:40:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210172340.g9HNe2m51526@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@cisco.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: last thought on complex aggregation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:03:52 EDT." <20021017150352.K19953@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <76464.1034898002.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:40:02 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:59:10PM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote: > > In other words, as long as the spec doesn't explicitly make such AS > > paths illegal, I don't think any permanent harm will have been done. > > Amen. With this in mind let's consider this issue closed (section on complex path aggregation will be removed). yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA28674 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 157A69121C; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D773A912DD; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12129121C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 941855DDE1; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360445DDC8 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HNXtm51033; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:33:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210172333.g9HNXtm51033@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8: final text In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:15 EDT." <20021017174315.X19953@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <73769.1034897635.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:33:55 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:35:19PM -0700, andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net wrot e: > > Wouldn't this be the same as implementing the timers seperately with the > > same values? I would argue that it a vendor wishes to do so they may, > > but it doesn't affect interoperabilty or the text Yakov posted. The > > different values in the text are only "suggested defaults" so there is > > room of implementations to choose different default values. > > The main reason I mentioned this was the fact that the lack of > implemented complex path aggregation was reason enough to call for > its removal from the spec. If we're going to have this requirement, > this is another spot where its at issue. > > In any case, I don't disagree with your assessment. :-) So, with this in mind, let's assume that we have a consensus and close the issue. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA22383 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0BFA5912D7; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C542E912D8; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B591B912D7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 985C55DDC9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02B55DD95 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9HLhJm10960; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HLhFC10953; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9HLhFP22519; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:43:15 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8: final text Message-ID: <20021017174315.X19953@nexthop.com> References: <200210171322.g9HDMVm99249@merlot.juniper.net> <20021017101821.B19138@nexthop.com> <20021017143519.M20015@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021017143519.M20015@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:35:19PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:35:19PM -0700, andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net wrote: > Wouldn't this be the same as implementing the timers seperately with the > same values? I would argue that it a vendor wishes to do so they may, > but it doesn't affect interoperabilty or the text Yakov posted. The > different values in the text are only "suggested defaults" so there is > room of implementations to choose different default values. The main reason I mentioned this was the fact that the lack of implemented complex path aggregation was reason enough to call for its removal from the spec. If we're going to have this requirement, this is another spot where its at issue. In any case, I don't disagree with your assessment. :-) > Andrew -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA22091 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2CB5D912D6; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EA167912D7; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029FB912D6 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DE7775DDC9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8184C5DD9D for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA05647; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:35:19 -0700 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8: final text Message-ID: <20021017143519.M20015@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <200210171322.g9HDMVm99249@merlot.juniper.net> <20021017101821.B19138@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021017101821.B19138@nexthop.com>; from jhaas@nexthop.com on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:18:21AM -0400 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, Wouldn't this be the same as implementing the timers seperately with the same values? I would argue that it a vendor wishes to do so they may, but it doesn't affect interoperabilty or the text Yakov posted. The different values in the text are only "suggested defaults" so there is room of implementations to choose different default values. Andrew > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:22:31AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. > > Generally agreed. > > But does anyone actually implement both timers? > GateD and Juniper have outdelay. > Cisco has neighbor advertisement-interval. > > In all cases, this is a general delay, not one that depends on > whether the route is being propagated or originated. > > > Yakov. > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA13576 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9E7C2912D3; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 69C0A912D4; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647BE912D3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C59BC5DE04; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FA25DDA0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9HJ3uc05673; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:03:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HJ3qC05666; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:03:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9HJ3qU20549; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:03:52 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@cisco.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: last thought on complex aggregation Message-ID: <20021017150352.K19953@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB70@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com <20021017144918.I19953@nexthop.com> <p05111a0fb9d4b8150c95@[192.168.42.10]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <p05111a0fb9d4b8150c95@[192.168.42.10]>; from jgs@cisco.com on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:59:10PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:59:10PM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote: > In other words, as long as the spec doesn't explicitly make such AS > paths illegal, I don't think any permanent harm will have been done. Amen. > --John -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA13335 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id C3A36912D1; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 92EF5912D2; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81339912D1 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5B4FD5DD8C; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from cisco.com (router.cisco.com [171.69.182.20]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E8E5DDBE for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.42.10] (ssh-rtp-1.cisco.com [161.44.11.166]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA25094; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jgs@router Message-Id: <p05111a0fb9d4b8150c95@[192.168.42.10]> In-Reply-To: <20021017144918.I19953@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB70@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com > <20021017144918.I19953@nexthop.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:10 -0400 To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@cisco.com> Subject: Re: last thought on complex aggregation Cc: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I have the same opinion about removing "complex aggregation" as Jeff -- I'm not thrilled but on the other hand I see no serious harm that will be caused by doing so. I am assuming that people will follow the "be liberal in what you accept" dictum and accept any reasonable AS path. IMO an implementation that rejects an AS path of the form (sequence)(set)(sequence) simply because the RFC doesn't spell out how to form one, is an implementation which is trying to be too clever by half. In other words, as long as the spec doesn't explicitly make such AS paths illegal, I don't think any permanent harm will have been done. --John At 2:49 PM -0400 10/17/02, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:43:56PM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: >> Nobody "fixed" their code based on this test, or we would not be >> having this conversation. > >IMO, that particular test should have been "can a router accept >a packet of this form (complexly aggregated) and still work"? > >> Also, what would happen in a real network with this type of aggregation??? >> --We don't know. I think that is the main point. > >IMO, things would work fine so long as people could accept packets of >that form. > >-- >Jeff Haas >NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA12743 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 695C1912D0; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 366E3912D1; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209B2912D0 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 01DF95DD8D; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436AF5DD8C for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9HInMO05105; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HInJC05098; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9HInJU20486; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:49:19 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: last thought on complex aggregation Message-ID: <20021017144918.I19953@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB70@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB70@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>; from JNatale@celoxnetworks.com on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:43:56PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:43:56PM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > Nobody "fixed" their code based on this test, or we would not be > having this conversation. IMO, that particular test should have been "can a router accept a packet of this form (complexly aggregated) and still work"? > Also, what would happen in a real network with this type of aggregation??? > --We don't know. I think that is the main point. IMO, things would work fine so long as people could accept packets of that form. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA12429 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 46B29912CF; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0FEE9912D0; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:44:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A51912CF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AE4585DE04; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FE35DDBE for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT8AD0>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:43:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB70@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: last thought on complex aggregation Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:43:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, Since there are no implementations that do complex aggregation, then your scenario will probably never happen. Removing complex aggregation from the spec is so that nobody takes the trouble of coding it. So far, the lone implementer (that I am aware of) was QoSnetics/Qbot/Router tester; they wrote a test (expecting the complex type of aggregation) which failed for all known (by me at least) "real" implementations (note that they mis-read RFC1771/Draft-10, which indicated that simple aggregation is sufficient also). Nobody "fixed" their code based on this test, or we would not be having this conversation. Also, what would happen in a real network with this type of aggregation??? --We don't know. I think that is the main point. :-) -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 1:45 PM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: last thought on complex aggregation I finally remembered what was bothering me about removing complex aggregation from the spec. If it is removed, people who do conformance tests and some implementations may take this to mean "it shall be illegal to have an AS_PATH that contains a SEQUENCE of a particular type after a SET". This would make a perfectly ok AS_PATH into one that isn't legal, even if no implementation currently generates it. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09116 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DC53E912CC; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8F282912CD; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EAA912CC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 121585DDB4; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A8F5DDB2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9HHjAb02101 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HHj7C02094 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9HHj7720240 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:45:07 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: last thought on complex aggregation Message-ID: <20021017134507.D19953@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I finally remembered what was bothering me about removing complex aggregation from the spec. If it is removed, people who do conformance tests and some implementations may take this to mean "it shall be illegal to have an AS_PATH that contains a SEQUENCE of a particular type after a SET". This would make a perfectly ok AS_PATH into one that isn't legal, even if no implementation currently generates it. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA05638 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:45:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6B03A912C8; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 04403912C9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ACC1912C8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8BD535DE04; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from tcb.net (tcb.net [205.168.100.1]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F305DDDA for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net (danny@localhost) by tcb.net (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g9HGehp11696 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:40:43 -0600 Message-Id: <200210171640.g9HGehp11696@tcb.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: idr@merit.edu From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: Re: MED is evil? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:40:43 -0600 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Whether to strip MED depends on what you are trying to accomplish with > MED. Of course. It's just that in my experience the harm caused by MEDs considerably outweighs the good. > Consider the case where ISP A and ISP B peer at multiple places and A > is directly connected to destination X and B is directly connected to > destination Y. > > Some ISPs consider it "fair" if both ISPs take the shortest path out > of their own netork to the other. In this case both will strip MED > before advertising to the IGP. They will usually accept MED for the > purpose of determining which of multiple routers to select at a > peering point. Right, and ALWAYS pick the peer that uses the IGP metric/MED allocation mechanism that results in the "lowest value", regardless of any real "metric". > If ISP A has a much faster or less congested network than ISP B, ISP A > may accept MED from ISP B and route based on MED. If ISP B sets MED > according to IGP cost, then a longer path might be taken through the > ISP A network but the shortest path will be taken in ISP B's network > in both directions. This is often the case if B is a customer of A. Likewise, if ISP A has congestion at a peering point or backbone link they may muck with the MEDs such that "accepting peers" carry the traffic across their network and hand it off where ISP A considers the optimal local entry point, potentially changing network and bw/util characteristics of the peers networks without any notice or other indications, etc.. I think MEDs have their uses, but again, see my first comment above. As always, YMMV. -danny Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04989 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CEF05912C7; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A04B2912C8; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0E9912C7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4B0A45DDA9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEBB5DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA88148; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:33:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210171633.MAA88148@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: danny@tcb.net Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: MED is evil? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:52:15 MDT." <200210171552.g9HFqFk11109@tcb.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:33:26 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <200210171552.g9HFqFk11109@tcb.net>, Danny McPherson writes: > > > Just the fact that so many knobs are available sheds light on the > > fact that many ISPs think MEDs are just evil and should be stripped. > > And I tend to agree... > > -danny Whether to strip MED depends on what you are trying to accomplish with MED. Consider the case where ISP A and ISP B peer at multiple places and A is directly connected to destination X and B is directly connected to destination Y. Some ISPs consider it "fair" if both ISPs take the shortest path out of their own netork to the other. In this case both will strip MED before advertising to the IGP. They will usually accept MED for the purpose of determining which of multiple routers to select at a peering point. If ISP A has a much faster or less congested network than ISP B, ISP A may accept MED from ISP B and route based on MED. If ISP B sets MED according to IGP cost, then a longer path might be taken through the ISP A network but the shortest path will be taken in ISP B's network in both directions. This is often the case if B is a customer of A. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04842 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 511EE912C5; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1C71D912C9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3336A912C5 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 303A35DDA2; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854265DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17635; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15055; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4W8JY918>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:30 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F75@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 65 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Agree. Perfect, it also addresses the MULTI-PATH issues. Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 12:27 PM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 65 > > > 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > I would suggest to replace: > > Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated > unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: > MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP. > > If the aggregation occurs as part of the update process, > routes with > different NEXT_HOP values can be aggregated when announced > through an > external BGP session. > > Path attributes that have different type codes can not be > aggregated > together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, > according to the following rules: > > with: > > Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT > be aggregated. > > Path attributes that have different type codes can not be > aggregated > together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, > according to the following rules: > > NEXT_HOP: When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP > attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route SHALL > identify an interface on the router that performs the > aggregation. > > In the absence of objections I am going to make the above change. > > Yakov. > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04612 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CBA41912C4; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 94E02912C5; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A91912C4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 48E0A5DDA2; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECA85DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HGR5m11307 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:27:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210171627.g9HGR5m11307@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 65 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <97545.1034872025.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:27:05 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would suggest to replace: Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP. If the aggregation occurs as part of the update process, routes with different NEXT_HOP values can be aggregated when announced through an external BGP session. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, according to the following rules: with: Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, according to the following rules: NEXT_HOP: When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route SHALL identify an interface on the router that performs the aggregation. In the absence of objections I am going to make the above change. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA03876 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5784F912C3; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 24D8D912C4; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D351912C3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 01B925DDFD; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from earthquake.proficient.net (fe0-0-access-1-sfo.proficient.net [65.209.247.5]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9B45DDA6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riga ([10.0.0.25]) by earthquake.proficient.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:14:27 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 8: final text From: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200210171322.g9HDMVm99249@merlot.juniper.net> References: <200210171322.g9HDMVm99249@merlot.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-4) Date: 17 Oct 2002 09:14:25 -0700 Message-Id: <1034871266.2449.43.camel@riga> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2002 16:14:27.0253 (UTC) FILETIME=[43F90E50:01C275F8] Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Agreed Justin Fletcher -- On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 06:22, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Folks, > > Here is the final text for the BGP Timers section: > > BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time > (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval > (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see > Section 9.2.1.1). > > The suggested default value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 > seconds. > > The suggested default value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. > > The suggested default value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of > the Hold Time. > > The suggested default value for the MinASOriginationInterval is > 15 seconds. > > The suggested default value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval > is 30 seconds. > > An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be > configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. > > To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages > by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be > applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, > Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A > given BGP speaker may apply the same jitter to each of these > quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates > are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per > peer" basis. > > The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer > is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. > > With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA03547 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5D2CB912C2; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2827E912C3; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2AE912C2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B73A25DDFD; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB085DDA6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HG9Am10149 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:09:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210171609.g9HG9Am10149@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 58: final MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <91540.1034870950.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:09:10 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following changes reflect the consensus of the WG: Replace: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. with: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. In 9.1.4 replace: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. with: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include all AS used to form the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. This attribute is now primarily informational. With the elimination of IP routing protocols that do not support classless routing and the elimination of router and host implementations that do not support classless routing, there is no longer a need to deaggregate. Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in particular MUST NOT be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA03150 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:02:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DCC40912C0; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9C5B2912C1; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DDE912C0 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 959BB5DDAC; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024F85DDA6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HG1qm09515 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210171601.g9HG1qm09515@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 61 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <88663.1034870512.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:01:52 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: There was text suggested, but no discussion. Discussion: Jonathan began this thread with: I propose adding: "When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer)." AFTER "When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP." There has been no discussion on this. This is discussed in the "Next hop for redistributed routes" thread. Issue 14 closed in favor of this issue. In response to Yakov's call for input, Michael responded that: Section 5.1.3 explictly states what to do when originating to an etternal peer. #2 covers one hop away, #3 covers more than on hop away. #1 talks about sending to an iBGP peer, but only when propergating a route received from an eBGP peer. 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. Text similar to #2 shoud be added, in their own bullit items to #1 such as what was suggested by Jonathan Natale (text is above.) Replace: 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. with: 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, if the route is not locally originated the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer). In the absence of objections I'll make the above change. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA03100 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6DF05912BF; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3514A912C0; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3FE912BF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DAC815DDB3; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B505DDAC for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA87883; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:59:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210171559.LAA87883@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: idr@merit.edu Cc: curtis@fictitious.org Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Separate document for multipath - or part of BGP spec Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:59:48 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk After some discussion initiated by Alex we ended up with the following text on BGP multipath. If we can get consensus on text to be added to the BGP base spec then we'll add text. If not, we'll omit any mention of BGP multipath. We seem to have rough consensus among a small number of people. Curtis [new subesection] BGP specifies how to select the single best route. OSPF specifically defines procedures for handling equal cost multipath (ECMP) [cite OSPF]. The same technique has been applied to ISIS. A similar technique has been used with BGP. Variations exist but the decision to support BGP multipath, the specific variation of BGP multipath, or not to support it, does not affect interoperability. A naive implementations of ECMP can cause severe performance degradation for TCP flows. To avoid this, implementations of BGP multipath SHOULD maintain packet ordering within microflows as described in [cite rfc2991, rfc2992]. BGP multipath, if implemented, SHOULD be disabled by default. In addition to IGP multipath (OSPF ECMP and ISIS equivalent), there are two variations of BGP multipath described here. A BGP implementation may offer both, either one, or neither variation of BGP multipath. Other variations of BGP multipath may exist, but no guarantees can be made in this protocol specification of their properties or impact on interoperability. Where IGP multipath is used, there is an interaction with BGP learned routes. The lookup of a BGP NEXT_HOP in the IGP can result in the selection of an IGP multipath entry. This is not a variation of BGP multipath. When this occurs, one BGP route is slected as the best but there is more than one way to reach the BGP NEXT_HOP via the IGP. In one variation of BGP multipath, a set of more than one IBGP routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a destination and are an equal IGP cost away from a second set of one or more routers. BGP multipath is applicable to the latter set of routers. Without BGP multipath, BGP would pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP Identifier) and use only that BGP route. With BGP multipath, BGP uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of more than one of these equal cost advertisements, yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Each BGP NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop if IGP multipath is in use). The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP multipath are external and learned by a single BGP peer. Without BGP multipath this peer would select only one of the BGP routes and obtain only one BGP NEXT_HOP. With BGP multipath, more than one equal cost route is selected yielding more than one BGP NEXT_HOP. Seldom does IGP multipath come into play when looking up an EBGP NEXT_HOP but could in principle be applicable. If in EBGP multipath traffic is split among routers in difference AS, an aggregate SHOULD be formed so as to propogate a route with an accurate AS_PATH. If the resulting aggregate is not more specific than the components, the AS_SET SHOULD NOT be dropped. The decsion point for multipath is after step "d" in Section 9.1.2.2 (prefer externally learned routes). IBGP learned and EBGP learned routes MUST NOT be combined in multipath. If the multipath decision is prior to "d", then two routers each with an external peering would form a routing loop. The decision point for multipath is generally after step "e" in Section 9.1.2.2. Some relaxation of the "equal cost" rule (also applicable to IGP multipath) is possible. In addition to the equal cost BGP NEXT_HOPS available at BGP route selection, if the IGP next hop for other BGP NEXT_HOPs are of lower cost, then those may be used as well. This relaxation of the step "e" is possible but is not widely implemented (and may not be implemented at all). Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02842 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7A0F0912BE; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 47945912BF; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A203912BE for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 489D05DDD8; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from tcb.net (tcb.net [205.168.100.1]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED165DDB3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net (danny@localhost) by tcb.net (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g9HFqFk11109 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:52:16 -0600 Message-Id: <200210171552.g9HFqFk11109@tcb.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: idr@merit.edu From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:52:15 -0600 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > The document should be clarified. > GateD currently pays attention to the neighboring AS regardless of > whether its a confederation or not. > The *DEFAULT* behavior of Cisco and Juniper is to not pay attention, > but that depends which of way too many knobs are set. I'll attempt to clarify in the next rev. > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094431.shtml > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos54/swconfig54-routing/html/protocols-overview4.html#1014020 > > Just the fact that so many knobs are available sheds light on the > fact that many ISPs think MEDs are just evil and should be stripped. And I tend to agree... -danny Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02507 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 49736912BC; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1F1C7912BD; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBE6912BC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:51:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5B82C5DDAA; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:51:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD0C5DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9HFoiC98618; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:50:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HFoeC98606; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:50:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9HFodv19727; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:50:39 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Tian Fang <tfang@hyperchip.com> Cc: "'danny@tcb.net'" <danny@tcb.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mcpherson-rfc3065bis-00.txt Message-ID: <20021017115039.M19138@nexthop.com> References: <8812A03F65CDD511AE98006008F5E871025D1816@hermes.hyperchip.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <8812A03F65CDD511AE98006008F5E871025D1816@hermes.hyperchip.com>; from tfang@hyperchip.com on Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 10:58:29AM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 10:58:29AM -0400, Tian Fang wrote: > I have a question that whether MED of routes from confederation members > should be compared or not, which is not clear in both rfc3065 and the new > draft. > > In bgp-4 draft 17, neighborAS(route) is used to get the neighbor AS of the > route. However, what should be returned by neighborAS() when the route > includes AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE/AS_CONFED_SET segments? > > To my understanding, if AS_SET/AS_SEQUENCE exist(s) in the aspath, the first > (leftmost) AS in AS_SEQUENCE should be returned by neighborAS(), no matter > whether AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE/AS_CONFED_SET exist(s) or not. if only > AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE/AS_CONFED_SET exist(s) in the aspath, the first > (leftmost) AS in AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE should be returned by neighborAS(). > > If my understanding is correct, should it included in somewhere to make it > clear? The document should be clarified. GateD currently pays attention to the neighboring AS regardless of whether its a confederation or not. The *DEFAULT* behavior of Cisco and Juniper is to not pay attention, but that depends which of way too many knobs are set. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094431.shtml http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos54/swconfig54-routing/html/protocols-overview4.html#1014020 Just the fact that so many knobs are available sheds light on the fact that many ISPs think MEDs are just evil and should be stripped. > Tian Fang -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA27130 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3E47F912B4; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 09B98912B5; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AAE912B4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E011A5DDD0; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2E35DDA0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9HEIOi95703; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HEILC95696; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9HEILk19262; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:18:21 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8: final text Message-ID: <20021017101821.B19138@nexthop.com> References: <200210171322.g9HDMVm99249@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210171322.g9HDMVm99249@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:22:31AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:22:31AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. Generally agreed. But does anyone actually implement both timers? GateD and Juniper have outdelay. Cisco has neighbor advertisement-interval. In all cases, this is a general delay, not one that depends on whether the route is being propagated or originated. > Yakov. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26546 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:11:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B0E99912B3; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 827DD912B4; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF9D912B3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 67B535DD9D; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08335DD98 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9HEAk195367; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HEAhC95360; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g9HEAhW19245; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:42 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 66 Message-ID: <20021017101042.A19138@nexthop.com> References: <200210171345.g9HDjTm00415@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210171345.g9HDjTm00415@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:45:29AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:45:29AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Jeff replied that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing complex > aggregation, and there is no reason to remove this from the specification. I am also fine with removing it. I just don't think its necessary, especially if One Of These Days someone decides that running policy based on as-adjacencies would be a Nice Thing and fixes their implementation to support "complex" aggregation of paths. That said, I am aware of no one who implements this. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26202 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D9E17912B2; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A556F912B3; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED64912B2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5B41F5DD9D; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BD15DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4LBT79VZ>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:05:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB69@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 32.1: final Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:05:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk agreed -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:53 AM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 32.1: final Here is the final text: In 4.3: a) ORIGIN (Type Code 1): ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - Network Layer Reachability Information is interior to the originating AS 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] 2 INCOMPLETE - Network Layer Reachability Information learned by some other means Usage of this attribute is defined in 5.1.1. In 5.1.1: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value SHOULD NOT be changed by any other speaker." Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26132 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 95D0F912B1; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 05412912B2; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28E1912B1 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D07245DD9E; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4775DD9D for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g9HE4J695190 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: from paradigm.nexthop.com (mrichardson.nexthop.com [64.211.218.45]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HE4GC95183 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: (from mrr@localhost) by paradigm.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9HE4F810195 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:04:15 -0400 From: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 67 Message-ID: <20021017140415.GA29694@nexthop.com> References: <200210171334.g9HDY2m99767@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200210171334.g9HDY2m99767@merlot.juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> [Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:34:02AM -0700]: <snip> >The issue of route selection in the present of confederations >belongs *not* to the base spec, but to the spec that describes >BGP Confeds. With this in mind I would suggest to change in 9.1.2.2 from > > a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for > having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH > attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts > as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the > implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments > of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in > the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. >to > > a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for > having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH > attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts > as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set. <snip> I agree both with this change, and with the logic behind it :) mrr Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25475 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 96396912AF; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:53:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 61A75912B0; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:53:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DEF9912AF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 280725DDA0; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6E95DD9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HDrGm00666 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:53:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210171353.g9HDrGm00666@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 32.1: final MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <48306.1034862796.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:53:16 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Here is the final text: In 4.3: a) ORIGIN (Type Code 1): ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - Network Layer Reachability Information is interior to the originating AS 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] 2 INCOMPLETE - Network Layer Reachability Information learned by some other means Usage of this attribute is defined in 5.1.1. In 5.1.1: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value SHOULD NOT be changed by any other speaker." Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25099 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D4906912AD; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9DC60912AF; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69445912AD for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:45:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id BF38C5DDA1; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314605DDA0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HDjTm00415 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:45:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210171345.g9HDjTm00415@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 66 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <46055.1034862329.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:45:29 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do we remove a section of the spec that has to do with an aggregation scheme that is rarely used? Discussion: Jonathan opened this discussion with: The part in the draft about complex AS path aggregation could/should be deleted. The current draft implies that when aggregating, for example (1st): 1 2 4 3 w/ 3 4 6 5 and 5 6 7 8 then 1 2 {3 4 5 6} 7 8 ...would be OK AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: (2nd)putting ONLY the local AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating 1 giant set and adding the local AS as a seq. So he proposed we remove this to reflect current code. Jeff replied that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing complex aggregation, and there is no reason to remove this from the specification. Jonathan is certainly correct that the spec has to reflect current code. Therefore, unless there are at least two (interoperable) implementations that implement the algorithm described in "6.8 Complex AS_PATH aggregation", this section has to be removed (this is irrespective of whether there is something wrong, or nothing wrong with complex aggregation). With this in mind, if you implement this algorithm please speak up within a week. If within a week we wouldn't know that there are at least two implementations the section will be removed. And likewise, if we hear that there are at least two implementations, the section will stay. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA24382 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8850D912AC; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 57ED7912AD; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3879F912AC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 054525DDA0; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906225DD9F for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HDY2m99767 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:34:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210171334.g9HDY2m99767@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 67 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <43007.1034861642.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:34:02 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Is how we count AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* covered suffiecently in the current draft? Discussion: Jonathan brought up some questions on how current implementations count AS_SET and AS_CONFED_* There were a variety of resposnes to this, answering his questions. Curtis pointed out that this behavior is covered in: That's in 9.1.2.2: a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. Jonathan replied that this might be at odds with what Juniper does, although he was unsure, and asked for clarification. This was discussed in the "New Issue AS path" thread. The issue of route selection in the present of confederations belongs *not* to the base spec, but to the spec that describes BGP Confeds. With this in mind I would suggest to change in 9.1.2.2 from a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. to a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set. and ask the authors of BGP Confeds to update their document to cover how the presence of confeds impact route selection. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA23727 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 05748912A9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CB2DB912AA; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF94912A9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9B7115DD9A; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB6A5DD99 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9HDMVm99249 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210171322.g9HDMVm99249@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 8: final text MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <39994.1034860951.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:22:31 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, Here is the final text for the BGP Timers section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested default value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested default value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested default value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested default value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested default value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker may apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per peer" basis. The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA11981 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:38:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9E997912A3; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3F761912A4; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8B3912A3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 83FB55E078; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (unknown [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE675DECE for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id BAA26238 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 01:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 01:35:08 -0700 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: idr@merit.edu Subject: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v1.3 Message-ID: <20021017013508.I20015@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Attached is the latest update to the issues list. I've added a section at the beginning listing all the issues that are NOT at consensus, so we can more easily see what we still need to work on. As of this revision we have 16 outstanding issue. Since the last revision, we had added 4 issues, updated 13, move 1 FROM consensus, and moved 8 to consensus. Andrew --RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue_List-v1.3.txt" 2002-10-16 v1.3 Since late August 2002, there has been a push to get any and all issues with the base spec. resolved so the IDR group can move this draft forward to the IESG. This is a list of the issues that have been brought up regarding the base draft, and the current working group consensus on them. All mistakes are mine, please email me at andrewl@cw.net with corrections. Please include the number and the title of the issue in the subject lines of email discussing that issue. It will help in keeping track. N.B. There is no rhyme or reason to the numbering scheme other than unique tags to address the issues. ============================================================================ Table of Contents ============================================================================ 1) IDR WG Charter 2) TCP Port 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID 5) Direct EBGP Peers 6) Disallow Private Addresses 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 12) TCP Behavior Wording 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer 15) Grammer Fix 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 18) IP Layer Fragmentation 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 34) Timer & Counter Definition 35) Fix Typo 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 42) Delete the FSM Section 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 50) FSM Timers 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 64) MED for Originated Routes 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ============================================================================ Issues with Consensus ============================================================================ 1) IDR WG Charter 2) TCP Port 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID 5) Direct EBGP Peers 6) Disallow Private Addresses 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 12) TCP Behavior Wording 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer (closed in favor of issue 61) 15) Grammer Fix 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 18) IP Layer Fragmentation 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 34) Timer & Counter Definition 35) Fix Typo 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 42) Delete the FSM Section 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 50) FSM Timers 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 64) MED for Originated Routes ============================================================================ Issues WITHOUT Consensus ============================================================================ 8) Jitter Text 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 63) Clarify MED Removal Text 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) IDR WG Charter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: New charter adopted. Discussion: A variety of discussions surrounded the new charter. The rough consensus is to accept the new charter that the AD's have proposed, and to push as hard a possible to get the base spec to RFC status so other drafts that are dependent can also move forward. This thread has messages subjects of "BGP spec and IDR WG charter" and "IDR WG charter". For our information, Alex has provided these aproximate timelines: Stage Anticipated delay Comment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD-review 1--4 weeks The document may go back to the depending on workload WG for the AD-review comments to be addressed; this would introduce additional delay. IETF LC 2 weeks Same as above IESG review& 1--2 weeks depending Same as above telechat on when the IETF LC ends ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that if the document is sent back to the WG at some stage, required changes may warrant an additional WG Last Call. I can personally commit to a 2-week upper bound for the AD-review period. Bill may have a different timer granularity. The opinions expressed on this were 7 in favor, 4 against. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) TCP Port ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change: "BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections." To: "BGP listens on TCP port 179." Discussion: There has been a discussion on clarifying the wording in Section 2, on which port BGP uses. The original text was: "BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections." The proposed new text is: "BGP listens on TCP port 179." There seems to be a rough consensus that the new text is better. This thread has a message subject of "Review: Section 2, TCP Port 179" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary Discussion: An issue was brought up later in the "Review: Section 2, TCP Port 179" thread about the words in the FSM for what state BGP accepts connections in. The consensus is that the existing wording is clear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary to base draft. Perhaps in a BCP. Discussion: The "admin dist/gp spec proposal", "Router ID" and "bgp spec proposal" threads discussed the BGP Identifier and how close or not it is to IGP's Router ID. The consensus was that this discussion is better saved for a BCP draft, and that it does not need to be contained in the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Direct EBGP Peers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: A recollection that ebgp peers must be direct. No text proposed, no discussion. Discussion: Jonathan recalled something that stated that ebgp peers must be direct. No specific sections were quoted. Yakov responded to this with: Section 5.1.3 talks about both the case where ebgp peers are 1 IP hop away from each other: 2) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is one IP hop away from the speaker: as well as the case where they are multiple IP hops away from each other: 3) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is multiple IP hops away from the speaker (aka "multihop EBGP"): And emphasized that multihop EBGP does exist. This came up in the "bgp draft review" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Disallow Private Addresses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": Mentioned explicitly disallowing private addresses. The consensus was that there is no reason to disallow them. Which IP addresses peers use is an operational issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Renumber Appendix Sections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Rename/renumber appendix sections so they do not have the same numbers as sections of the main text. Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": This thread brought up renaming sections in the appendix to avoid confusion with sections of the same number in the main text. Yakov responded that he would do so in the next edition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Jitter Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus on the change, but we still need the text Change: Potentially Summary: Get rid of section 9.2.1.3 ("Jitter"). Move the text to an Appendix: "BGP Timers" Expand text to indicate that jitter applies to all timers, including ConnectRetry. We still need specific text for the Appendix we have some good text on the table, and we're debating tweaks to it. Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": The thread also proposed: "jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval" Be changed to: "jitter should be applied to the timers associated with ConnectRetry timer" Yakov agreed with making some changes and suggested that we make sure that jitter is applied to all timers. Specifically, he proposes we get rid of section 9.2.1.3 ("Jitter"), move the text of this section into Appendix "BGP Timers", and expand the text to indicate that jitter applies to ConnectRetry timer as well. Jonathan, the original commentor, agreed with Yakov's suggestion. In a follow-up to this issue, there was a question raised about the values we have specified for timers in the document. Specifically: The ConnectRetry timer is should have a value that is 'sufficiently large to allow TCP initialization. Application of jitter can reduce the this value (by up to 25%). A configuration which the ConnectRetry timer has been pegged at a value close to TCP connection time may cause a connection to be terminated as a result of this jitter. Is this a cause for concern ? The default value suggested for ConnectRetry (120 seconds) is sufficiently large that event with a jitter of 0.75, it will be greater than TCP'c connection establishment timer. Is adding a jitter to the ConnectRetry timer a standard practice ? What benefit does this provide ? Curtis responded to this with: The TCP connection establishment timer is 75 seconds (sysctl yield "net.inet.tcp.keepinit: 75000" in BSD-oids). The ConnectRetry determines when to make a second attempt after a prior attempt to connect has failed. It is to avoid a rapid succession of retries on immediate failures (for example "Connection refused" if the peer was in the middle of a reboot, Network Unreachable if you can't get there from here, etc) but also covers the case where the TCP SYN goes off and is never heard from again. And Jonathan replied with this information about current practice: It seems to me that if you bring up all bgp peers at once it may lead to load spikes on the network. Cisco seems to wait 27.5 +/- 2.5 seconds for IBGP, and 40 +/- 5 seconds for EBGP--20 sec. from config time to the "open active, delay" jittered delay assignment plus the jittered delay (5 to 10 sec. for IBGP, and 15 to 25 sec. for EBGP). This would also apply for "no neighbor x.x.x.x shutdown". Their value of ConnectRetry is 60sec. though, not sure how this value is used (based on above). Maybe some Cisco folks can chime in on this one??? I did not check Juniper. Also, interestingly, they do not apply jitter to the other timers (as far as I can tell), but I don't see a problem with this. Another timer that they use that is not mentioned in the draft/rfc is the next hop resolution timer which is 30 seconds. Although it would be nice to have this in the spec, I will concede that it is out of scope and/or implementation dependent. So the question that arises from this followup, is how does this question affect the text of the appendix on jitter? Curtis replied that we need to only state that jitter should be applied to all timers. Whether a vendor does so or not is a minor deficiency and does not bear on interoperability. Therefore, specifying exact details are not necessary. After Jonathan's response Curtis and Jonathan agreed that jitter should be added to all timers and that we should state so in the text. Yakov proposed the following text for the appendix to discuss jitter: I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker shall apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter will not be applied on a "per peer" basis. The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. Jeff & Ben agreed with this. Justin suggested that we move the range from 0.75 to 1.25 to ensure that the average is around the configured value. Yakov agreed with Justin's changes. Jonathan disagreed, arguing that it was out-of-scope for the task of clarifying the text only. Justin agreed and withdrew his comment. Curtis liked the general text, but suggested these modifications: minor improvement (not really an objection) -- s/suggested value/suggested default value/g Also s/shall apply the same jitter/may apply the same jitter/ (to each of these quantities regardless of ...). s/jitter will not be applied/jitter need not be configured/ (on a "per peer" basis). He stated that in Avici's implementation they allow a lot of granularity in timer settings, so this reflects current practice. Curtis also suggested changing the last paragraph: The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. This would make it clear that it is possible to have this timer as configurable and still be within spec. Other comments on Yakov's text pointed out that IOS uses 5 seconds as the default IBGP MinRouteAdvertisementInterval. Tom pointed out that there seems to be a discrepency between this text and the FSM: The FSM has an OpenDelay timer. And the FSM suggests a HoldTimer of 4 minutes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add a reference to RFC904 Discussion: The "Review Comment: Origin Attribute pg 14" thread suggested adding a reference to RFC904(?), to refer to the EGP protocol. There was no discussion. Yakov agreed to this, and Jonathan seconded it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add this to 9.2: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and may choose to log an error locally. Discussion: The "Extending AS_PATH attribute length en route" thread brought up the issue of what action should we specify when we receive a route with an AS_PATH that exceeds the defined maximum length. There was some discussion, and it was suggested that, after logging the error, the route not be propegated. Yakov stated that: The real issue here is how to handle the case when a route (a single address prefix + path attributes) doesn't fit into 4K bytes (as the max BGP message size is 4 K). To address this issue I would suggest to add the following to 9.2: After some discussion, Yakov's proposed text's last sentance was dropped and we arrived at: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker may choose not to advertise the route to its peers. In response to Andrew's clarification question to the list, Curtis responded: Wording would be more like: If the attributes for a specific prefix becomes too large to fit the prefix into the maximum sized BGP UPDATE message, the prefix should not be advertised further. Truncation or ommision of attributes should not occur unless policies for such modifications are specifically configured. Such policies may contribute to the formation of route loops and are not within the scope of this protocol specification. After some additional discussion, it was decided that we add "and may choose to log an error locally." to the end of Yakov's text. Also, we agreed to change "may choose not to advertize..." to "MUST NOT advertise...". So the text on the table right now is: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and may choose to log an error locally. This met with one agreement and no disagreements. We have a consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Variety of texts proposed to help clear up the rules for moving routes from Loc-RIB into Adj-RIB-Out. Discussion: The "Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3" thread brought up some lack of clarity in the section discussing the rules for which routes get propegated from the Loc-RIB into the Adj-RIB-Out. These discussions resulted in a number of suggestions for new text. The first new text was proposed to clarify the issue that the thread first brought up: I agree that this could use some clarification. How about adding to b) in section 9.1: The Loc-RIB must contain only one route per destination; further, it must include all routes that the BGP speaker is using. changing c) in section 9.1.2 to: c) is selected as a result of the Phase 2 tie breaking rules specified in 9.1.2.2, or and adding d) when routing protocols other than BGP are in use, is determined by some other local means to be the route that will actually be used to reach a particular destination. This text was never discussed or a consensus formed on putting it in the document. This modification to 9.1.2 was also proposed to address the same concern: How about changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 to: The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. This route SHALL then also be installed in the BGP speakers forwarding table. There was one response in the negative to this change, arguing that is is not necessary. Yakov replied to this that: Wrt "adding to b) in section 9.1", the second part (after ";") is redundant as this point is already stated in 3.2. Wrt the first point about Loc-RIB containing just one route per destination, I would suggest to add it to section 3.2, where Loc-RIB is first introduced, rather than adding it to 9.1. Wrt "changing c)... and adding...", I have no objections to add/modify the text, as suggested above. I am not sure though that changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 is really necessary though, so I would prefer to keep it as is. The "issue 11" thread this was being discussed in then digressed to the topic, now covered in issue 11.3. Ben readdressed the original issue with this input: I have somewhat of an issue with the paragraph after item c section 9.1.2 as discussed. which is => "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. If the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table (as a result of the local policy decision), care must be taken to ensure that invalid BGP routes to the same destination are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new route replaces an already existing non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker." Can we assume that its OK to have a route present in the Loc-RIB and possibly in the adj-RIB-Out but not in the Routing table due to some policy. Won't we violate rule number 1? Only advertise what you use. As conversly implied in this sentence => "If the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table (as a result of the local policy decision), care must be taken to ensure that invalid BGP routes to the same destination are removed from the Routing Table" I would rephrase the paragraph as follows => "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. When the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to the same destination that are now considered invalid are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new BGP route replaces an existing non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker." Ben's comment has not yet received a reponse. We are still working on consensus on this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: The text below will be added to the -18 version. Discussion: In further discussions around this issue, this text was also proposed: How about adding to section 9.1.3, at the end: Any local-policy which results in reachability being added to an Adj-RIB-Out without also being added to the local BGP speaker's forwarding table is beyond the scope of this document. This suggestion received one response that agreed to this change. This text will be added to the -18 version, and since there were no objections, this issue has been moved to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: It was pointed out that this issue had gotten prematurely moved to consensus since it was incorrectly subsumed into issue 32.2. Discussion on this issue as resumed. We are currently trying to decide if we should: 1. Omit it (the implied consensus of the rewrite of the paragraph in 32.2). 2. Leave it as is and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. 3. Clean up the wording and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. Discussion: Additionally this thread produced this section of new text, in section 2: <OLD> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." Should be changed to <NEW #1> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only routes whose NLRIs are locally reachable." <NEW #2> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only routes which are locally reachable. Local reachability can be achieved by having any protocol route to the given destination in the routing table." There were a lot of emails exchanged on this topic with a variety of texts proposed (see early in the "Active Route" thread). This issue reopend with Jonathan, who brought up the issue originally, stating that: The issue I raised, and would like to be [re-]considered is with: "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." Curtis replied that: That is called route orgination and it is allowed by: 9.4 Originating BGP routes A BGP speaker may originate BGP routes by injecting routing information acquired by some other means (e.g. via an IGP) into BGP. [...] The decision whether to distribute non-BGP acquired routes within an AS via BGP or not depends on the environment within the AS (e.g. type of IGP) and should be controlled via configuration. Advice on what to put in the AS_PATH and NEXT_HOP is in the document. He continued with: I don't think there was ever consensus on what to do with the statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses". Some reasonable choices are: 1. Omit it (the implied consensus of the rewrite of the paragraph in 32.2). 2. Leave it as is and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. 3. Clean up the wording and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. The separate paragraph for 2 would be the exact sentence we now have. A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. In possibility 3 we (try to) clear up the ambiguity about the meaning of the word "use" in this sentence. A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. In this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is either directly used in forwarding or in a specifically configured case where the BGP route would be forwarded internally but IGP forwarding information is used. The latter case reflects a usage in which the IGP is used for forwarding but BGP is originated to IBGP to carry attributes that cannot be carried by the IGP (for example, BGP communities [N]). Other special cases such as virtual routers and multiple instances of BGP on a single router are beyond the scope of this document but for each of these the statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses" can (and should in the definition of the extension) be made true with an appropriate definition of the word "use". Unless someone volunteers better wording this may be a good starting point. I thing the last sentence borders on ridiculous in a protocol spec but may be necessary to address specific objections raised on this mailing list. If we want to elaborate on the meaning of the word "use" and address the objections this is what we end up with. Of course looking at what we ended up with, I'd also go along with the other two options (leave it out or put the one sentence in a separate paragraph as is). This issue is still undergoing debate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: The documenting of IBGP Multipath is left to another Internet Draft. The consensus is that it should not be in the base spec. However, we are reconsiderting this at the moment. Discussion: This thread began in the "issue 11" discussion. In it it was proposed that: There is support in some router vendors to allow more than one BGP route to be installed, for the purpose for load balancing. Given that this is a current practice, and seems to be a useful feature as well, should we insist that only one route be installed in the Loc-RIB ? I would like to suggest that all sections which use MUST in the context of only one route in Loc-RIB be relaxed a little to a SHOULD, and a section added that states that it is possible for a n implementation to add more than one route to the Loc-RIB for the purposes of load balancing. While it will be useful to describe how this situation is the handler, it is perhaps sufficient to even state that handling of this situation is outside the scope of this RFC. I am including some proposed text for this purpose: For the part: > The Loc-RIB must contain only one route per destination; consider instead, % The Loc-RIB SHOULD contain only one route per destination. % An implementation may choose to install multiple routes to % a destination (for the purposes of load balancing). The % handling of such a configuration, however, is outside the % scope of this RFC. Perhaps, this can be in section 3.2 instead. After much discussion back and forth, it was agreed that documenting IBGP Multipath behavior is a good thing. However, it is something that belongs in another draft. Alex opened this issue up again. There were a flury of responses, most all of them agreeing with the original consensus that we should document this feature in a different draft, since it doesn't affect the core interoperatbilty requirements, and we want to advance the spec in a timely manner. Alex persisted in his assertion that this belongs in the base specification. Right now, the issue is still open. This discussion later expanded in scope to include all BGP multipath. Curtis laid out a good description of the various flavors of multipath: In addition to IGP multihop, there are two cases of BGP multipath. In IGP multihop there is one BGP advertisement but to ways to reach th BGP NEXT_HOP via the IGP. In one case of BGP multihop, two (or more) IBGP routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a destination and are an equal cost away from a third router. BGP multihop is applicable to that third router. Without BGP multihop, BGP would normally pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP Identifier) and use that. The IGP lookup would yield one next hop. With BGP multihop, BGP uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of both advertisements. Each BGP NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop). The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP multipath are external. Seldom does IGP multipath come into play for EBGP (odd tunneled EBGP mutlihop cases maybe). Typically the load is split among two (or more) routers in the same AS. If in EBGP multipath you split among routers in difference AS, an aggregate should be formed. This is still prior to the IGP cost rule in the route selection. Normally one would not combine IBGP and EBGP in multihop given that the decsion point for multihop is after "d" in 9.1.2.2. If the multihop decision was prior to "d", then two routers each with an external peering would forward some of the traffic to each other and for some src/dst pairs, they'd form a loop. [So don't do that!] This is getting to be a lot to add to the base spec. I hope we've convinced you that we should put it in another document. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) TCP Behavior Wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: In issue 19 we decided to remove this section entirely. As a result the previous consensus on this issue (no change) is renderd moot. Discussion: The subjectless "your mail" thread discussed a wording clarification from: "An implementation that would "hang" the routing information process while trying to read from a peer could set up a message buffer (4096 bytes) per peer and fill it with data as available until a complete message has been received. " To something that is more TCP-correct, such as: "An implementation that would "hang" the routing information process while trying to received from a peer could set up a message buffer (4096 bytes) per peer and fill it with data as available until a complete message has been received. " (only change: "read" to "received" This was one of a couple of suggested changes.) This suggestion was quite contentious, and although there were a variety of alternate texts proposed, the only consensus was that this was a very minor issue, and probably not worth changing. In issue 19 we decided to remove this section entirely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) Next Hop for Originated Route ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No reponses, assumed consensus to keep things the same. Discussion: There was a one-message thread entitled "next hop for originated route". This message received no reponse, so the assumption is that there is a consensus to keep things as they are. For related discussion see issue 61. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Closed in favor of issue 61. Discussion: The thread entitled "NEXT_HOP to internal peer" starts with this question: When sending a locally originated route to an internal peer, what should NEXT_HOP be set to? One response suggested that we add a line stating that the NEXT_HOP address originates from the IGP. Since this issue and issue 61 are basically the same, except 61 proposes text, we'll close this issue in favor of 61. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) Grammer Fix ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change: "The Prefix field contains IP address prefixes ..." To: "contains an IP address prefix ..." Discussion: The thread entitled "Review comment: bottom of page 16" corrects a grammer mistake by suggesting we change: "The Prefix field contains IP address prefixes ..." to: "contains an IP address prefix ..." Yakov responded that this will be fixed in -18. The consensus seems to be to correct this, and go with the new text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Need to add a Table of Contents (ToC), Glossary and Index to the draft. Will be added in draft -18. Discussion: The "Review Comments: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" thread suggests: 1. Document needs, Table of Contents, Glossary, and Index 2. Paths, Routes, and Prefixes need to be defined in the spec early on (like in a glossary), so it is obvious what is implied. Yakov responded that draft -18 will have a ToC and definition of commonly used terms. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add references to other RFC-status BGP docs to the base spec. Discussion: The "Review Comments: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" thread then changes titles to: "Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" and goes on to suggest: 3. All BGP Extensions described in other documents that made it to RFC status should be at least referenced in the Reference section P.64. This is justifiable since it's the core BGP standard spec. Yakov responded that this will be added to the -18 review. Jonathan agreed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) IP Layer Fragmentation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No need to mention IP Layer Fragmentation in the BGP specification, since this is taken care of at the TCP level. Discussion: 1. P.6 section 4. Message Formats, its possible for the source BGP peer IP layer to fragment a message such that the receiving BGP peer socket layer would have to reassemble it. Need to mention this, since BGP implementations are required to do this. The response to this was that, while true, reassembly is something that is inherent in the TCP layer that BGP rides over. Therefore, this is something that is in the TCP spec, and needn't be repeated in the BGP spec. This comment was reaffirmed. There seems to be consensus that this isn't something that needs to be in the BGP spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Remove the section entirely, as this is something that does not belong in the base spec. Discussion: This first came up in reponse to Issue 17: There was one comment suggesting that section 6.2 (Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol" mentioned this. The original reviewer reponsed that the out-of-scope comment was out-of-place and refered the reponder to section 6.2 (appendix 6) The original reviewer stated that he is happy with just adding a reference to section 6.2 in appendix 6 and leaving it at that. Curtis suggested we just add a reference to Stevens in appendix 6. 6.2 and be done with it. Specifically: 6.2 Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol BGP uses TCP as a transport mechanism. If you are unsure as to how to handle asynchronous reads and writes on TCP sockets please refer to Unix Network Programming [RWStevens] or other introductory text for programming techniques for the operating system and TCP implementation that you are using. There were further suggestions to remove the section entirely as out-of-scope. At least 3 people agreed with this. Alex responded that he sees no reason to remove it, but wouldn't have a problem if the WG decides to do so. There seems to be general agreement that this section should be removed. N.B. This also affects issue 12. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: A small change for clarity in section 4.3 Discussion: This suggestion grew out of the discussion on Issue 18. The following change was suggested in section 4.3, second line of the first paragraph: s/UPDATE packet/UPDATE message/ Yakov agreed to this change and updated the draft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) Authentication Text Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that additional references to RFC2385 are not necessary. Discussion: P. 10, "Authentication Data:" section you might want to add this, It is also possible to use MD5 (RFC2385) at the transport layer to validate the entire BGP message. Yakov replied to this: There is already text that covers this: "Any authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms." .... "In addition, BGP supports the ability to authenticate its data stream by using [RFC2385]." So, I see no need to add the text proposed above. Ishi agreed with Yakov. Jonathan disagreed since he thought no one uses BGP auth. Ishi replied that there are lots of people who do use it. Jonathan replied with a clarification question: "Who uses *BGP's own* authentication mechanisms???" Ron Bonica replied that they use BGP auth. There was some additional discussion over who implements simple password authentication vs. MD5. After further discussion, the consensus seems to be that we should leave the text as it is for the reasons Yakov pointed out. There was some discussion over opening a new issue to discuss deprecating the BGP auth mechanism discussed in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism in RFC2385. The issue of Depricating BGP AUTH is discussed in issue 62. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: This is already being covered by text that has been added to the -18 draft. Discussion: P. 12, right after "Path Attributes". The following sentence should be added to this section to clarify the scope of the Path Attribute field. "All attributes in the Path Attribute field represent the characteristics of all the route prefixes defined in the NLRI field of the message". Yakov replied to this that: This will be covered by the following text in 3.1 that will be in the -18 version (see also issue 54). Routes are advertised between BGP speakers in UPDATE messages. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Therefore there is no need to add the sentence proposed above. There were no objections to this statement, so this issue has been moved into consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: For various reasons, not least of which is compatability with existing implementaions, the decision was made to keep thing the way they are. Discussion: 4. P.16, last paragraph in section 4.3 as stated, "An UPDATE message should not include the same address prefix in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields, however a BGP speaker MUST be able to process UPDATE messages in this form. A BGP speaker should treat an UPDATE message of this form as if the WITHDRAWN ROUTES doesn't contain the address prefix." This complexity could have been avoided if withdrawn routes and NRLI prefixes with their attributes were mutually exclusive of each other and appeared in different update messages. If that was the case, the priority of which field to process first would have been as simple as using "first come, first served" message processing approach. Yakov commented that this would make the case where they are both in the same message unspecified. John commented that this is something we don't want to change this late in the game. Although it was acknowledged that this might be a good change if we were working from a clean slate. Ben acceeded that this was somewhat wishful thinking on his part. Curtis's comment seems to coincide with this message, stating: The existing rules are very clear. Summarized: If an UPDATE contains only a withdraw for a prefix, then withdraw whatever route the peer had previously sent. If an UPDATE contains the prefix only in the NRLI section, replace whatever route had previously been advertised by the peer or add a route if there was no previous route, in both cases adding a route with the current attributes. Don't put the same prefix in the same in both the withdraw and NRLI section of the same update. If you receive an UPDATE with the same prefix in both the withdraw and NRLI, ignore the withdraw. [Some older implementations thought this was a good way to say "delete then add".] Process UPDATEs from the same peer in the order received. And goes on to say, that to him, these rules are clear from the existing text. Consensus is that while this would be nice, we need to stick with what we have, and move on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the following to section 3.1: Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Discussion: 5. P. 20 Its not stated how we delete or modify Path Attributes associated with NLRI prefixes. A response to this comment said that this is implicit in the definition of "route" and the general withdraw/replace behavior and therefore doesn't need to be repeated. Ben responded saying that, while there was an assumption, there was no well defined mechanism, and this leads to ambiguity. John reponded, no need to define everything explicity, or we'll be here forever. Picking this thread up again, Yakov argued: By *definition* a route is a <path attribute, NLRI> pair. From that definition it follows that changing one or more path attributes of a route means changing a route, which means withdrawing the old route (route with the old attributes) from service and advertising a new route (route with the new attributes). Procedures for doing this are well-defined (see section 3.1), and therefore no new text to cover this is needed. Jonathan agreed with this statement, but Ben argued that the text in section 3 is insufficent the way it is currently written. After two iterations, Ben and Yakov agreed on this formulation for an update to section 3.1: Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Jeff objected somewhat to the wording, since, because of a bgp route is defined as a <path attribute, NLRI> pair, changing either part of that pair, by definition, changes the route. He acknowledged that this might fall under the category of implementation detail. Yakov presented the view that he thought we were at consensus with the text he proposed above. Jonathan agreed. There were no objections, so this is moved to Consnesus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: After reponders pointed out another sentance, this comment was resolved. Things will stay the way they are. Discussion: 1. P.28, 2nd to last paragraph. The line that reads, "To be semantically correct, the IP address in the NEXT_HOP must not be the IP address of the receiving speaker, and the NEXT_HOP IP address must either be the sender's IP address (used to establish the BGP session), or the interface associated with the NEXT_HOP IP address must share a common subnet with the receiving BGP speaker..." This is not always true, what if the current ASBR BGP router is advertising an external AS route (to a IBGP Peer) whose NEXT_HOP IP address is the IP address of the EBGP peer in the other AS? A response to this pointed out that right before this is a sentance stating that this only applied to eBGP links, and only when the peers are one hop from each other, so a modification is unnecessary. This reponse was confirmed with another. The original reviewer acknowldeged this and withdrew the comment. The consensus is to leave things the way they are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: After some discussion, the consensus is to keep things the same since the suggested behavior is defined in the message format. Discussion: 2. P. 29, Section 6.3. Add this rule near the attribute rules. "Multiple prefixes that require the same attribute type with different values must never appear in the same update message". A response to this suggested that this text is unnesessary since this behavior is ruled out by the way the message format is defined. The original commentor agrees with the reponder. The consensus is to leave things the way they are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: It is agreed that this is a change that exceeds the original goal of this draft revision. This goal is to document existing practice in an interoperable way. Discussion: 3. P. 29, Section 6.5, Please rewrite this sentence from: "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or NOTIFICATION messages within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message ..." To This: "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or any other BGP message within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message ..." There is disagreement on this change. It has been discussed in other threads. The original commentor acknowledged that this is something that would be "adding a new feature" as opposed to the stated goal of "documenting what exists." He suggested that the ADs decide if we should open the door for new features or not. Yakov replied to this that he would suggest we keep things as is, since the purpose is to document current implementations. This did not meet with any objections, so this issue has been moved into consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that changing the BGP Identifier in the base draft is out-of-scope at this point in the draft evolution. Discussion: 4. P. 31, section 6.8, Please rewrite this sentence from: "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as (4-octet long) unsigned integers." To This: "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as large numbers based on their IP Address type (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, etc.)." A reponse to this was that since BGP Identifier is defined in the base spec as a 4 byte unsigned integer, and not a variable quantity, the sentance as written is acceptable. This was also confirmed by another response. The original commentor was thinking of IPv6, and providing sufficent space to allow a full v6 address to be used. Again, reponders said that this is out-of-scope for the current draft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add: "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence on p. 46. Discussion: 5. P.46, last sentence, "However, corresponding unresolvable routes SHOULD be kept in the Adj-RIBs-In." It would helpful if the author states why unresolvable routes should be kept in Adj-RIBs-In? A reponse to this stated "In case they become resolveable" Yakov responded that: I suggest we add "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence on p. 46. The original commentor stated that: Then the point that the peer will not refresh the route if we drop them (unless we use Route Refresh) because they are unreachable should be made. Yakov also responded that: This should be clear from the following text in Section 3: The initial data flow is the portion of the BGP routing table that is allowed by the export policy, called the Adj-Ribs-Out (see 3.2). Incremental updates are sent as the routing tables change. BGP does not require periodic refresh of the routing table. Jonathan, who was the original commentor, agreed with both the changed text and the clarity of section 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) Mention Other Message Types ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add a reference to RFC2918 at the end of the type code list. Discussion: 1. P. 7 Type: Need to add the new message types such as, Capability Negotiations (RFC2842), Route Refresh, etc. One reponse argued that these are out-of-scope of the base document. One reponse agreed, but thought that it should be capability and not message type. The original commentor reponsed about Message type from the capability draft. Sue mentioned this would be added in the second round. Yakov replied that: The only new message type that is covered by an RFC (rather than just an Internet Draft) is the Refresh message. With this in mind how about replacing the following: The following type codes are defined: 1 - OPEN 2 - UPDATE 3 - NOTIFICATION 4 - KEEPALIVE with This document defines the following type codes: 1 - OPEN 2 - UPDATE 3 - NOTIFICATION 4 - KEEPALIVE [RFC2918] defines one more type code. Jonathan agreed with this change. This issue has been moved to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) Add References to Additional Options ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Consensus to add: [RFC2842] defines another Optional Parameter. Discussion: 2. P. 9, right after "This document defines the following optional parameters:" Need to mention possible options, such as: Capabilitites (RFC2842), Multiprotocol extensions (RFC2858), Route Refresh (RFC2918). One reponse agreed that adding references would be fine. A second reponse agreed. Yakov replied that: Please note that only rfc2842 defines an OPEN optional parameter. Neither rfc2858 nor rfc2918 defines an OPEN optional parameter. With this in mind I would suggest to add the following text: [RFC2842] defines another Optional Parameter. The original poster agreed with this modification. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) Clarify EGP Reference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Need to clarify the EGP Reference, since there seems to be some confusion on the issue. This is partly addressed in the 32.1 text with the addition of a RFC904 reference to EGP ORIGIN type. Discussion: 3. P. 13, EGP, are there other EGP protocols other than BGP that are in use? If not, change EGP to BGP. A response to this suggested that we add a reference to [1] (the EGP spec) here. Another reponse clarified that this refers to EGP-the-protocol and NOT the class. Another response disagreed, but suggested that: IGP = network was explicitly introduced into bgp (network cmd) INCOMPLETE = network was implicitly introduced into bgp (redistribute) EGP = other The original commentor thought that this refered to EGP-the-class of protocols. And why not use BGP therefore, as the only EGP. There was some disucssion over whether or not we should mention something that is historical. Jeff suggested a footnote in the Origin section about EGP. Curtis suggested that we state that the EGP in ORIGIN is deprecated, but retain the value to document what it used to mean. This reviewer thinks a statement about whether this "EGP" origin refers to the protocol or the class or protocols would be useful. Yakov replied that an EGP reference will be added (see issue 9). Yakov also stated that he doesn't see what is wrong with the current text, and suggsted we keep it. This includes leaving out any reference to the status of the EGP spec. He sees that it is clear from context that we are talking about "the EGP" [RFC904]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Change section 5.1.1. Text is still being worked out. ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers. Consensus to change: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol to: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] Discussion: This discussion is picked up again in the "Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17" thread, where specific text is proposed: Old: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - Network Layer Reachability Information is interior to the originating AS 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol 2 INCOMPLETE - Network Layer Reachability Information learned by some other means" New: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - NLRI was explicitly introduced into bgp 1 EGP - this value was administratively configured to affect policy decisions or NLRI was learned via the EGP protocol [1] 2 INCOMPLETE - NLRI was implicitly introduced into bgp" since: 1) The network command sets the origin to IGP and I remember seeing somewhere that only static routes should be set to IGP. 2) The primary use of EGP value is policy 3) EGP seems to still exist, anyway even if it does not it is not worth re-writing the world. Also, change: "5.1.1 ORIGIN ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the autonomous system that originates the associated routing information. It shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." to: "5.1.1 ORIGIN The value of the ORIGIN attribute shall be set by the speaker that originates the associated NLRI. Its value shall not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." since: 1) It is already defined as well-known mandatory attribute. 2) It may be set differently within the same AS (not saying this is good). 3) It is commonly used for policy, but by default does not get changed. 4) Speakers have no choice, it is mandatory. After much continued discussion on this in the "issue 32.1" thread, we seem to have come to a consensus that section 5.1.1 should read: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." This text met with a number of agreements, and one disagreement stating that we shouldn't have the "unless administratively configured" portion. After some further discussion, we have this text on the table: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers. Jonathan suggested that we change "propagate this information" to "forward this route". He also mentioned that he would prefer something more explicit instead of/in addition to "The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." such as "other speakers do not change the ORIGIN value." On the issue of making the EGP ORIGIN type more clear Andrew proposed: To me, there seems to be sufficent confusion around the "EGP" reference to merit some sort of clarification. The simplest modification would be to change: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol to: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] That would clarify that we're talking about the protocol, and not the class-of-protocols, or EBGP. It would leave unstated that this could theoretically be used to muck with route selection. I think that is ok. If operators want to override ORIGIN to affect some hoho magic, they are welcome to do so, but I don't think it needs to be documented in the base spec. This met with a number of agreements. On the second text section we are working on, Jonathan objected to the current working text below and suggested an alternate: CHANGE: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." TO: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." -or- "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker." Jonathan cited a recent example of someone who was still confused by this section of the text in -17 (not specifically the working text). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: After much discussion, this is the consensus: This text in the current draft: To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet. will be replaced in -18 with the following text: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to be enforced*. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond that neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Discussion: In response to these proposals, Yakov proposed that the real problem is that it is not clear that BGP is build to support the destination-based forwarding paradigm. To fix this, it was propsed that: <OLD> To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet. <NEW> Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Curtis thinks the newer text here is more clear. In reponse to the new text, Christian Martin propsed a slightly different new text: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS based on prefixes originating from the local AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. To which Yakov replied: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring AS to some destination (which is outside of the neighboring AS, but is reachable through the neighboring AS) intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by the traffic to the same destination that originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. And Chris reponsed: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring AS to some destination beyond the neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic to the same destination which originates in the neighboring AS. In other words, the BGP policy of a local AS cannot affect the downstream (aka, away from the local AS) forwarding policy of a remote AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Tom Petch prefered Yakov's second formulation, with these changes: policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic ! to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond ! that neighboring AS intending that ! the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic ! originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Yakov agreed to Tom's suggested changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to MED Section Add "well-known mandatory" to the NEXT_HOP Section Discussion: 4. P.23, change the following: "The MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS ..." To the following: "The MULTI_EXIT_DISC is an optional non-transitive attribute which may be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS ..." A reponder disagreed, and stated reasons "covered elsewhere" Original commentor asked for reasons, since the modification seemed obvious to him. Yakov agreed to make this change in -18. Jonathan replied that: 5.1.3 NEXT_HOP also, it is missing " well-known mandatory". Yakov also agreed to make this change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) Timer & Counter Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: No discussion, no text proposed, defaults to consensus for no change. Discussion: 5. In section 8, there are a number of Timers, Counters, etc. that need to be explicitly defined before they are used by the FSM. Perhaps these definitions should go in the Glossary section. There has been no further discussion on this issue. Unless it is brought up again, this issue is in consensus, with no change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35) Fix Typo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix a Typo. No discussion, but this seem clear. Discussion: 1. P. 41. Typing error, "Each time time the local system...". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: This change requires a glossary. Yakov has committed to having a section where commonly used terms are defined in draft 18, so this issue is at consensus. Discussion: 2. Section 9.1, Need to have Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out, and Loc-RIB in the glossary, so when they are used in section 9.1, it is well understood what they are. Yakov replied: will be added to the section "Definition of commonly used terms" in -18 version. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the following terms to the "commonly used terms section": Feasible route A route that is available for use. Unfeasible route A previously advertised feasible route that is no longer available for use. Discussion: 3. P. 45, Phase I, There is no definition of what are unfeasible routes? Are they the same as withdrawn routes? If so, the two should be combined to one name. Ishi replied to this that he thought that we could combine the two terms, since there is limited difference from an implementation standpoint. Yakov replied: The routes are withdrawn from service because they are unfeasible, not because they are "withdrawn". So, we need to keep the term "unfeasible" to indicate the *reason* why a route could be withdrawn. On the other hand, "withdrawn" is used as a verb, and to the best of my knowledge "unfeasible" can't be used as a verb. With this in mind, I don't think that we can combine the two into a single term. Ishi replied that he was convinved, and that the terms should stay seperate. Andrew asked the list if we should define these terms in the "commonly used terms" section in draft -18. Ben replied that if we use them alot, we should define them, and if not local definitions will suffice. There was some back and forth about the necessity of defining terms which should be obvious. mrr actually checked the doc to see if we were consistantly using the terms, and found: It turns out there there is an inconsistancy in the usage of the word withdrawn. Section 3.1: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been withdrawn from service: ... b) a replacement route with the same NLRI can be advertised, or ... Later, in the definition of Withdrawn Routes Length, we have: A value of 0 indicates that no routes are being withdrawn from service, Taken together, this could be construed as meaning that a Withdrawn Routes Length of 0 indicates that all routes included in the UPDATE represent newly feasible routes... not replacement routes. Now, it's possible that this problem has been removed by changes to the text that have not yet been incorporated in to a new draft; however, it arose because the text, for the most part, does _not_ use "withdrawn" in the standard way. Instead, it refers to routes included in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field of an UPDATE message. Consequenty, I propose defining a "withdrawn route" as follows: Withdrawn route: a route included in the WITHDRAW ROUTES field of an UPDATE message. Regardless of whether or not this definition is included, Section 3.1 shold be changed from: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been withdrawn from service: to: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been removed from service: or: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route is now unfeasible: After some further off-list discussion, mrr agreed that this inconsistancy is extremely minor, and withdrew his comment. feasible and unfeasible route will be defined in the "commonly used terms" section to clear up any confusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Consensus that the issue was suffiecently minor to leave things alone. Discussion: 4. P. 50, line, "If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out the previously advertised route in that Adj-RIB-Out must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)." Would like to rephrase the sentence for clarity, "If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out and was previously advertised via Adj-RIB-Out, it must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)." One comment suggested either leave it alone, or remove "via Adj-RIB-Out". The original commentor withdrew the comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Redundant definitions, clarity requested. Possible solution below. Discussion: 5. P. 50, section 9.1.4, The two fragments of this sentence are redundant and don't say anything new or simplify the content. Just keep one fragment. "A route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix) is said to be more specific than a route describing a larger set of destinations (a shorted prefix); similarly, a route describing a larger set of destinations (a shorter prefix) is said to be less specific than a route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix)." There was a comment that disagreed, thinking that both "more specific" and "less specific" need to be defined. And suggested that only the third and forth parentheses need to be dropped. The original commentor agreed with the parentheses changes. Yakov agreed to drop the third and fourth parentheses in the -18 version. Jonathan replied to this: Disagree, the text if fine the way it is, except you need to change "shorted" to "shorter". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that current practice allows for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval to be set per peer, so the text should be kept the same. Discussion: 6. P. 52, section 9.2.1.1 Change this sentence for clarity, "This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-destination basis, although the value of MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is set on a per BGP peer basis." To This: "This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-destination basis, although the value of MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is set on a BGP router (same value for all peers) basis." There was a comment disagreeing with this proposal. It was later elaborated on to include that the reason for diagreement was that the proposed changes changed the protocol and not just a practice clarification. Ben reponded asking for how this is a protocol change, he saw it as a clarification. Perhaps there is something deeper that needs to be clarified? Again, response to this is that current implementations allow the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval to be set per-peer, not per-router. Original reviwer conceeded the point. There was some additonal discussion on this point. Most of it was along the lines of extracting what was really implemented and supported among various vendors. The conclusion was the same. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No discussion on this issue. No text proposed. Perhaps this is in the FSM section of the draft? Either way, it defaults to consensus with no change. Discussion: 7. P. 61, item 6.4. Although all the BGP protocol interfacing timers are mentioned, there are a few FSM internal timers mentioned in the spec that need to be covered here as well. There has been no discussion on this, it now defaults to consensus with no change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42) Delete the FSM Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: There was some confusion on the question: Is the FSM draft going to be a seperate document, or incorporated into the base draft. The consensus is that it is going to become part of the base draft, so the FSM section will be kept, and elaborated on. Discussion: 8. Since there is going to be an FSM spec, do we need to have FSM descriptions in this spec. Maybe the FSM section should be delete. There was one response agreeing with this. One reponse asking for claificaiton: Was this a move to remove section 8. Finite State Machine from the base draft?? The original reviewer said, yes, when Sue's FSM draft becomes a WG document, we should remove section 8 from the base draft. Yakov asked that the AD's provide input on this suggestion. Alex responded saying that the FSM draft is going to be part of the base spec, and not another document once the FSM words are approved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace: "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." With: If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer. Discussion: The "NOTIFICATION message error handling" thread proposed: Please change" "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." To: "If a peer receives a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." This reversal of meaning met with disagreement, and this text was proposed instead: All errors detected while processing the NOTIFICATION message cannot be indicated by sending subsequent NOTIFICATION message back to originating peer, therefore there is no means of reporting NOTIFICATION message processing errors. Any error, such as an unrecognized Error Code or Error Subcode, should be noticed, logged locally, and brought to the attention of the administration of the peer that has sent the message. The means to do this, however, lies outside the scope of this document. The original posted agreed with the intent of the respondant's text, thought it was too wordy, but did not propose alternate text. Yakov replied with this propsed text: If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer. Two responses liked this new text. Unless there are objections, we'll consider that a consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: One commentor observed that the spec seems to specify behavior that doesn't seem to be observed by extant implementations, and suggested modifications to the spec. They were later reminded that the base behavior is acceptable, and agreed. Discussion: The "BGP4 draft ; section 6.2" thread began with a discussion of section 6.2: OPEN message error handling. Specifically: "If one of the optional parameters in the Open mesage is not recognized, then the error subcode is set to 'unsupported optional parameters" We have hit on this line when we were testing a BGP connection between a speaker that supported capability negotiation and a speaker that did not. The speaker that did not support the neogotiation closed down the peering session using the error clause mentioned above. Sometimes this lead to the other router to repeat the OPEN message with the Capability optional parameter; a game that went on for minutes. This router manufacturer stated in a reply to this that : "One should not close down the connection if an optional parameter is unrecognised. That would make this parameter basically mandatory. This is an well known error in the BGP spec. Neither Cisco or Juniper do this" If this is true it might be good to adapt the text. The response to this quoted RFC2842, Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4: A BGP speaker determines that its peer doesn't support capabilities advertisement, if in response to an OPEN message that carries the Capabilities Optional Parameter, the speaker receives a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Subcode set to Unsupported Optional Parameter. In this case the speaker should attempt to re-establish a BGP connection with the peer without sending to the peer the Capabilities Optional Parameter. The original poster responded: This section from the Capabilities Advertisement RFC, is indeed inline with the section 6.2 of the BGP4 specification. For me however the question remains if most implementations do no simply ignore optional parameters that are unknown. And if so, if the text stated above reflects what is implemented by routers that do not have capability advertisement at all. Yakov replied to this with: RFC2842 assumes that a router (that doesn't implement RFC2842) would close the BGP session when the router receives an OPEN message with an unrecognized Optional Parameter. Therefore the text in the spec should be left unmodified. The original poster, Jonathan, agreed with this. This issue moves to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Update the document to make references to BGP Peers, Connections and Sessions more clear and consistant. Proposed text is below, as well as current comments. Discussion: Ben proposed and Yakov responded: > 1. Throughout the document we have various ways of naming the BGP > peering communication. 1) BGP Session, 2) BGP Peering Session, I'll replace "session" with "connection". > 3) TCP Connection, The spec doesn't name BGP peering communication as "TCP connection"; TCP connection is used to establish BGP connection. So, TCP connection and BGP connection are two different things. > 4) BGP Connection, The spec is going to use this term (see above). > 5) BGP Peering Connection, I'll replace "BGP peering connection" with "BGP connection". > 6) Connection, The text uses "connection" whenever it is clear from the context that it refers to "BGP connection" (or "TCP connection"). > 7) BGP Speaker Connection. I'll replace "BGP Speaker Connection" with "BGP connection". > > BGP router: 1) BGP Speaker, 2) speaker, 3)local speaker The term "speaker" is used when it is clear from the context that we are talking about "BGP speaker". > 2. Change Internal peer to IBGP Peer. IBGP stands for "BGP connection between internal peers". Therefore the term "IBGP Peer" would mean "BGP connection between internal peers peer". That doesn't seem appropriate. This issue has had some discussion, and section 3 was referenced, specifically: Refer to Section 3 - Summary of operations which clearly states that " .. a peer in a different AS is referred to as an external peer, while a peer in the same AS may be described as an internal peer. Internal BGP and external BGP are commonly abbreviated IBGP and EBGP" After more discussion it was decided that we should modify a paragraph on page 4 to read: If a particular AS has multiple BGP speakers and is providing transit service for other ASs, then care must be taken to ensure a consistent view of routing within the AS. A consistent view of the interior routes of the AS is provided by the IGP used within the AS. For the purpose of this document, it is assumed that a consistent view of the routes exterior to the AS is provided by having all BGP speakers within the AS maintain IBGP with each other. Care must be taken to ensure that the interior routers have all been updated with transit information before the BGP speakers announce to other ASs that transit service is being provided. This change has consensus. > 3. Change External peer to EBGP Peer. Ditto. Alex responded that haveing explicit definitions would be nice. This ties into the general glossary suggestion (see issues 16, 34 & 36). He also suggested that: "BGP session" which works over a "TCP connection" would be closer to the terminology we're actually using now and would avoid possible confusions when people read terms like "Connection collision") This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We need to decide which text (the original base draft, or the FSM draft) needs to be updated to clear up this issue. There does appear to be agreement that some clarification would be beneficial. Discussion: The original reviewer (Tom) commented that the base draft, FSM section, could use some clarification around the area of connection collision detection. Specifically, he argued that it seems like there are actually 2 FSM's depending on which one backs off in the case of a collision. He proposed this text to clear things up: "8 BGP FInite State Machine This section specifies BGP operation - between a BGP speaker and its peer over a single TCP connection - in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before) Instead of just "This section specifies BGP operation in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before). Curtis responded: There is one FSM per connection. Prior to determining what peer a connection is associated with there may be two connections for a given peer. There should be no more than one connection per peer. The collision detection identifies the case where there is more than one connection per peer and provides guidance for which connection to get rid of. When this occurs, the corresponding FSM for the connection that is closed should be disposed of. I'm not sure which document containing an FSM we should be reading at this point, but we could add the above paragraph if we need to explicitly state that the extra connection and its FSM is disposed of when a collision is detected. When a TCP accept occurs, a connection is created and an FSM is created. Prior to the point where the peer associated with the connection is known the FSM cannot be associated with a peer. The collision is a transient condition in which the rule of "one BGP session per peer" is temporarily violated and then corrected. This is discussed in the "FSM but FSM of what?" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: A desire for explicit state change wording was expressed. No text was proposed. The assumption is that this issue has reached a happy conclusion. Discussion: The initial reviewer: In most places, the actions taken on the receipt of an event include what the new state will be or that it remains unchanged. But there are a signficant number of places where this is not done (eg Connect state events 14, 15, 16). I would like to see consistency, always specify the new/unchanged state. Else I may be misreading it. There was a reponse asking for specific text, and offering to take the discussion private. This is discussed in the "FSM words - state changes" thread. There has been no further discussion on this. The assumption is that is has reached a happy conclusion privately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Text has been proposed to describe the general process of a BGP connection comming up. Discussion: Alex suggsted we explicity define: - processing of incoming TCP connections (peer lookup, acceptance, FSM creation, collision control,) Curtis later proposed this text: BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. For each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is not known with certainty. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same peer may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each peer plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. Jonathan pointed out that there was an inaccuracy in the proposed text. Curtis replied with this: You're correct in that you must have a collision of IP addresses on the TCP connections and that the BGP Identifier is used only to resolve which gets dropped. The FSM stays around as long as "BGP Identifier" is not known. Replace "not known with certainty" with "known but the BGP identifier is not known" and replace "for the same peer" with "for the same configured peering". The first paragraph is unchanged: BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. The second paragraph becomes: A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. For each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier is not known. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same configured peering may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). The next paragraph then needs to get fixed. Changed "for each peer" to "for each configured peering". A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. Add a paragraph to further clarify the point you made. There may be more than one connection between a pair of peers if the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" to the same peer. > So multiple simultaneous BGP connection are allowed between the same two > peers, and this behavior is implemented, for example to do load balancing. Good point. I hope the corrections above cover your (entirely valid) objections. If you see any more errors please let me know. Tom replied that: I take issue with the 'will attempt to connect' which goes too far. The FSM defines events 4 and 5, 'with passive Transport establishment', so the system may wait and not attempt to connect. The exit from this state is either the receipt of an incoming TCP connection (SYN) or timer expiry. So we may have a FSM attempting to transport connect for a given source/destination IP pair or we may have an FSM not attempting to connect. (In the latter case, I do not think we can get a collision). In the latter case, an incoming connection should not generate an additional FSM. I do not believe the concept of active and passive is helpful since a given system can flip from one to the other and it does not help us to clarify the number of FSM involved.. And Curtis suggested that: Could this be corrected by replacing "will attempt to connect" with "unless configured to remain in the idle state, or configured to remain passive, will attempt to connect". We could also shorten that to "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise". Clarification (perhaps an item for a glossary entry): The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for almost a decade and have proven useful. The words active and passive have slightly different meanings applied to a TCP connection or applied to a peer. There is only one active side and one passive side to any one TCP connection as per the definition below. When a BGP speaker is configured passive it will never attempt to connect. If a BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't matter which end was active and which end was passive and the only difference is which side of the TCP connection has port number 179. Tom agreed with Curtis, that he liked the "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise" verbiage. This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49) Explicity Define Event Generation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Suggested that we explictiy define BGP message processing. No text proposed. There has been no further discussion on this issue, it is assumed that the consensus is that things are ok the way they are. Discussion: Alex suggsted we explicity define: - generation of events while processing BGP messages, i.e., the text describing message processing should say where needed that a specific event for the BGP session should be generated. No text was proposed. This discussion has received no further comment. Unless someone wants to reopen it, it is assumed it has reached a happy ending. This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50) FSM Timers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Discussion tabled, because new document version rendered the discussion moot. Discussion: This discussion began with a suggestion that the timers currently in the FSM: In the 26Aug text, I find the timer terminology still confusing. Timers can, I find, stop start restart clear set reset expire Can be cleaned up and simplified to: start with initial value (spell it out just to be sure) stop expire A reponse to this proposal was, that the existing set is clear, and that the proposed set is insufficently rich to describe a concept like "reset" which encompases: "Stop the timer, and reset it to its initial value." This discussion reached an impasse, when Sue pointed out that the text had been updated, and to please review the new text. This was discussed in the "FSM more words" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Discussion tabled, because new document version rendered the discussion moot. Discussion: This started with the observation that the ConnectRetryCnt "seems to have lost its purpose." It was suggested that this be made a Session Attribute, along with: OpenDelayTimer and DelayOpenFlag. Curtis explained that the current purpose of the ConnectRetryCnt is something to be read by the MIB. He also advocated against adding the additional Session Attributes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. Discussion: This thread started with a question about why we should retain routes in the Adj-RIB-In, and how it relates to the Route Refresh extention. mrr proposed this text: ... Therefore, a BGP speaker must either retain the current version of the routes advertised by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. This is necessary to allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without requiring the reset of any peering sessions. If the implementation decides not to retain the current version of the routes that have been received from a peer, then Route Refresh messages should be sent whenever there is a change to local policy. Yakov later suggsted this text, with a slight rewording: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. mrr reponded that he was fine with Yakov's suggestions. This was discussed in the "Proxy: comments on section 3" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Clean up the wording in text surrounding the UPDATE message. There was no discussion or consensus on this. But, does the consensus change reached in issue 54 address this sufficently? Discussion: This issue arose out of this question to the list: Since: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are the systems whose IP addresses are reported in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message." When I read section 4.3: "An UPDATE message is used to advertise feasible routes sharing common path attribute to a peer, or to withdraw multiple unfeasible routes from service (see 3.1)." Shouldn't the text read "... advertise feasible [prefixes | destinations] sharing common path attribute(S)to a peer ...", because: 1) A route is defined as quoted above from section 3.1? or since ... "An UPDATE message can advertise at most one set of path attributes, but multiple destinations ..." 2) make "routes" in the orignal singular. There was no discussion or consensus on this. This was discussed in the "Review Comments: Section 4.3: "routes" vs. destinations - advertise" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change the definition of "route" as it currently stands to: For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are contained in one IP address prefix carried in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE message and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Discussion: This issue was brought up with this question: When I read these two paragraphs at the end of section 4.3: "An UPDATE message can list multiple routes to be withdrawn from service. Each such route is identified by its destination (expressed as an IP prefix), which unambiguously identifies the route in the context of the BGP speaker - BGP speaker connection to which it has been previously advertised. An UPDATE message might advertise only routes to be withdrawn from service, in which case it will not include path attributes or Network Layer Reachability Information. Conversely, it may advertise only a feasible route, in which case the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field need not be present." It reads as if one must withdraw the _set of destinations_ advertised with the route instead of just one or more destinations since route is defined in section 3.1 as: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are the systems whose IP addresses are reported in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message." Shouldn't the text change "routes" to destinations, or to prefixes? The original commentor added this clarificaiton later: I meant to say, the *same* set of destinations as those advertised initially. For example, NLRI with dest-a, dest-b and dest-c with the same attributes is a "route". The withdrawal of the "route" can be read as one must withdraw all destinations originally advertised for that route (dest-a, dest-b, dest-c) as a unit. A first time reader could be left wondering if the above must be the case, or it is valid for an implementation to withdraw just one of these destinations (e.g. dest-b), leaving the others (dest-a, dest-c) reachable with their attributes intact. If there is no relationship between destinations when advertised as a set of destinations in a route and those destinations that can be withdrawn should be explicitly stated. Otherwise, the draft should call out that it is not legal to withdraw one prefix only in the set of prefixes advertised as previously as route. Matt suggested that since the definition seems to cause some confusion, that we update teh definition to: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are reported in one prefix present in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. This definition allows multiple routes to be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE. All such prefixes must be associated with the same set of path attributes." Yakov suggested some minor rewording: For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are contained in one IP address prefix carried in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE message and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Both Jeff and Matt responded that they liked this text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace: Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs in the path segment value field. With: Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (not the number of octets) in the path segment value field. Discussion: This question was raised: Length fields elsewhere in the draft specify the number of bytes that a variable length field uses. For AS_PATH, length is used as the number of 2 byte AS numbers. In the interest of not having to check other sources to be sure, should the descripton of path segment value: "The path segment value field contains one or more AS numbers, each encoded as a 2-octets long field." explicitly mention the number of bytes used by the variable length field? Or, make the description of length explicitly mention that it is not the length of the variable length field as is the case with other length fields? One respone to this agreed that some more clarification would be good, specifically an ASCII art diagram. No diagram was proposed. Yakov proposed this change: How about replacing Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs in the path segment value field. with the following Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (but not the number of octets) in the path segment value field. Jonathan offered this text: How about: "Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (which is half the number of octets since each AS is 2 octets) in the path segment value field (also note that the path may contain more than 1 segment). Jeff replied that he prefered Yakov's text, but without the "but". Yakov agreed to that. Andrew also agreed, and asked if there were any objections to moving this issue into consensus. There were no objections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: There are a variety of updates to the text that are best described in the discussion section. Discussion: This discussion began with some suggestions on ways to clarify the text in section 6 dealing with error handling. The original comments, and Yakov's response are below: > At the beginning of Section 6. BGP Error Handling: > > > "When any of the conditions described here are detected, a > NOTIFICATION message with the indicated Error Code, Error Subcode, > and Data fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed." > > There are several cases where the conditions described in this section > do not result in the BGP connection being closed. These conditions > should either state that the connection stays up. Another possibility > is to remove "and the BGP connection is closed." above, and for each > listed connection, state what happens to the BGP connection. This > already takes place for certain conditions, but isn't done consistantly. How about replacing the above with the following: When any of the conditions described here are detected, a NOTIFICATION message with the indicated Error Code, Error Subcode, and Data fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed, unless it is explicitly stated that no NOTIFICATION message is to be sent and the BGP connection is not to be close. > > > I tried to list what I found (which may be wrong or incomplete) below: > > > > "If the NEXT_HOP attribute is semantically incorrect, the error should > be logged, and the route should be ignored. In this case, no > NOTIFICATION message should be sent." > > * Append the connection is not closed. Done. > > "(a) discard new address prefixes from the neighbor, or (b) terminate > the BGP peering with the neighbor." > > * Append "the connection is not closed" to case (a) added "(while maintaining BGP peering with the neighbor)" to case (a). > > "If > the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be > stored in the Adj-RIB-In," > > * append and the BGP connection stays up. > > "but unless the router is configured to > accept routes with its own autonomous system in the AS path, the > route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." I would suggest to move this text to Section 9 (UPDATE message handling), as receiving a route with your own AS in the AS path isn't really an error. It is just that usually (but not always) you can't put this route in your Adj-RIB-In. > > * Q1) does the BGP connection stay up? yes. > * Q2) what if the router isn't configured to accept routes with its own > AS in the AS path? One _may_ store the route in Adj-RIB-In, but if one > doesn't want to? So, don't store them. > Is the BGP connection closed? If so, what subcode? The connection is *not* closed. > "If an optional attribute is recognized, then the value of this > attribute is checked. If an error is detected, the attribute is > discarded, and the Error Subcode is set to Optional Attribute Error. > The Data field contains the attribute (type, length and value)." > > * Append and the BGP conneciton stays up after "the attribute is discarded". Since you have to close the connection, you have to discard all the routes received via this connection, including the route with the incorrect attribute. So, there is no need to say that "the attribute is discarded". There have been no objections to the updates listed above. This issue seems to have reached a happy ending, so it has been moved into consensus. This was discussed in the "-17 review Section 6 - BGP Error Handling." thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: It was suggested that we update the text to say that we MUST reject hold time values of zero. It was pointed out that this is not the case and the text should say the way it is. Discussion: In Section 6.2 on OPEN message error handling: If the Hold Time field of the OPEN message is unacceptable, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Unacceptable Hold Time. An implementation MUST reject Hold Time values of one or two seconds. I feel that text similar to: "An implementation MUST also reject Hold Time values of zero received from a peer in a different AS" should be considered for completeness. A number of respondants pointed out that zero hold time is legitimate under certain circumstances. This was discussed in the "-17 review, Section 6.2 - must reject hold time" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: After some discussion, it would seem that the group is converging on an opinion that ATOMIC_AGGREGATE should be moved to an informational status. Discussion: Jeff opened this discussion with: Deprecation of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: [This is a summary of some discussions from those who have "been there, done that" during the CIDR deployment period and also comments from network operators on the NANOG list.] When BGP-4 was originally drafted, the topic of aggregation was new enough that people didn't exactly know how it would be used. Additionally, there were some transition issues when aggregated networks would need to be de-aggregated and re-advertised into a classful routing mesh such as BGP-3. The ATOMIC_AGGREGATE flag was intended to prevent a route from being de-aggregated when de-aggregation would introduce routing loops. Note that de-aggregation in this context specifically means making a less specific route into one or more more-specific routes. The current BGP draft has two situations where ATOMIC_AGGREGATE should be appeneded to a route: 1. When a route's AS_PATH is intentionally truncated, such as what happens by default on Cisco's, or using the "brief" option on GateD. Juniper has a similar feature - I'm unsure of the default. 2. When two routes are implicitly aggregated in the LocRib such that a more specific route is not selected when a less specific route is from a given peer. Note that this particular feature is not implemented anywhere that I am aware of. 3. There is a third case not covered by the specification: Implicit aggregation on export - a more specific route is not exported and only a less specific one is. When network operators were asked about de-aggregation practices, I received about 40 responses. The majority of these responses confused de-aggregation with leaking existing more-specific routes that are used internally rather than explicitly de-aggregating a less-specific route. There were a very few cases of explicit de-aggregation. One form was done for purposes of dealing with another ISP creating a routing DoS by advertising IP space that didn't belong to them - leaked more specifics alleviated the problem in many cases. (Note that this is a security issue in the routing system.) The second case was de-aggregating routes internally (and sending the routes via IBGP marked with NO-ADVERTISE) for purposes of traffic engineering routing internally where a given upstream failed to provide enough routing information to allow traffic flows to be optimized based on supplied prefixes. My conclusions to this are: 1. De-aggregation is not a common practice. 2. It is no longer a major concern since classful inter-domain routing is pretty much gone. 3. The spec doesn't match reality and should be corrected. My suggestions are thus this: Section 5.1.6 should be updated as follows: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. Its use is deprecated. When a router explicitly aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated (usually due to truncation), the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. Section 9.1.4 should be updated as follows: Original text: : If a BGP speaker receives overlapping routes, the Decision Process : MUST consider both routes based on the configured acceptance policy. : If both a less and a more specific route are accepted, then the : Decision Process MUST either install both the less and the more : specific routes or it MUST aggregate the two routes and install the : aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same value of : the NEXT_HOP attribute. : : If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add : ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries : ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the : NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along : such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually : traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Replace with: It is common practice that more specific routes are often implicitly aggregated by selecting or advertising only a less-specific route when overlapping routes are present. As such, all routes SHOULD be treated as if ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is present and not be made more specific (de-aggregated). De-aggregation may lead to routing loops. Section 9.2.2 should remain as it is. Implications of not making the above updates: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is not implemented as documented. Current operational practices do not seem to often trigger situations that it was intended to remediate. After all, by the way it is currently documented, many of the routes in the Internet would likely have ATOMIC_AGGREGATE. The original motivation for this investigation (aside from a few years of wondering what this portion of the spec *really* meant) was making sure the MIB is correctly documented. I can do this now, even if the spec is not corrected by simply noting that the values: lessSpecificRouteNotSelected(1), lessSpecificRouteSelected(2) mean: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE not present ATOMIC_AGGREGATE present rather than documenting anything about less and more specific routes. The v2MIB can be fixed to just call it what it is since it hasn't been RFC'ed yet. Lastly, the spec would just be incorrect. But all said, nothing bad would really come of this. Yakov responded to this, saying that he thought these changes were reasonable, and unless there were objections, they would be adopted. Ishi strongly agreed with the changes. Curtis stated that: We used to add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE whenever the AS_PATH was truncated rather than replaced with an AS_SET. It was always purely informational since no one intentionally deaggregated and reannounced. And suggested that we remove the MUSTs and indicated that this is only informational. Jeff replied that: The point is that by definition of the attribute, anywhere that policy is used (and some places where it may not be), ATOMIC_AGGREGATE *should* be there. Since its not, and it would generally be everwhere, you just shouldn't de-aggregate. At best, leaving it as a method of informationally signalling truncation of a AS_PATH is the best we'll get out of it - and it matches current implementations. Jonathan agreed with Curtis' idea that we should just move ATOMIC_AGGREGATE to informational. Curtis proposed this text: This existing text is fine: f) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE (Type Code 6) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute of length 0. Usage of this attribute is described in 5.1.6. This is the existing text that we are considering changing: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Suuggested new text: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Diffs (for reader convenience): @@ -4,13 +4,19 @@ ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of - advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated - route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH - of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when - advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. + advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the + aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of + AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network + administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be + advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. + + If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in + the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of + dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the + peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE - attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when + attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE Current text in 9.1.4: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Change to: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include all AS used to form the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. This attribute is now primarily informational. With the elimination of IP routing protocols that do not support classless routing and the elimination of router and host implementations that do not support classless routing, there is no longer a need to deaggregate. Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in particular MUST NOT be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. This text in 9.2.2.2 need not change. ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route shall have this attribute as well. The appendix need not change: Appendix 1. Comparison with RFC1771 [...] Clarifications to the use of the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. This might be a bit more wordy that is necessary. It does address the objections to keeping ATOMIC_AGGREGATE by making the MUST into SHOULD, and explaining that ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is now primarily informational. Yakov was fine with this text. So at this point we're trying to achieve consensus with the text Curtis has proposed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59) Section 4.3 - Move text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes (minimal) Summary: Update indentation to allow a new "subsection" heading. Otherwise no change. Discussion: This began with this suggestion: The text about the mimimum length, at first look, gives the impression that it is still part of the NLRI field description and/or the Path Attributes section. A new "subsection" or heading of some sort would be helpfull in switching context back to the UPDATE message as a whole and not the path attributes field anymore. Yakov agreed to update the indentation. Jonathan agreed, and suggested this text: " The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 23 octets -- 19 octets for the fixed header + 2 octets for the Withdrawn Routes Length + 2 octets for the Total Path Attribute Length (the value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." Should be moved up to just after "... the Total Path Attribute Length field and the Withdrawn Routes Length field." Yakov responded to this with: Disagree, as "... the Total Path Attribute Length field and the Withdrawn Routes Length field." explains how to calculate the length of NLRI field (and therefore is part of the NLRI field description), while "The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 23 octets...." has to do with the length of the UPDATE message. Jonathan also suggested: " the value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." Should be changed to " the min. value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the min. value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." And Yakov responded with: Disagree, as the text doesn't talk about what is the minimum value of the Withdrawn Routes Length and Total Path Attribute Length fields, but talks about the value of these fields in the case of a min length UPDATE message. After Yakov's response and a posting to the list asking that this be moved to consensus, there were no objections, so this is moved to consensus. This is discussed in the "Review: Comments: Section 4.3: UPDATE min length" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Make this change to clarify path attributes in an UPDATE: To correct the confusion I propose to replace: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. with: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE message, except for an UPDATE message that carries only the withdrawn routes. Discussion: This thread began with MikeC pointing out: The top of page 13 says: "A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE." Is this really true, given that later, in the second to last paragraph of this section (4.3): "An UPDATE message might advertise only routes to be withdrawn from service, in which case it will not include path attributes or Network Layer Reachability Information." This could be confusing to a first time reader. The path attribute length is present in every UPDATE, the path attribute field itself can be left out, both according to the description of the minimum length of the UPDATE message and (implied?) in the picture of the UPDATE message at the beginning of section 4.3. This met with one agreement. Yakov then proposed that: To correct the confusion I propose to replace: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. with: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE message, except for an UPDATE message that carries only the withdrawn routes. There was one agreement with this proposal. This is discussed in the thread: "Review: Section 4.3 - Path Attributes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: There was text suggested, but no discussion. Discussion: Jonathan began this thread with: I propose adding: "When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer)." AFTER "When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP." There has been no discussion on this. This is discussed in the "Next hop for redistributed routes" thread. Issue 14 closed in favor of this issue. In response to Yakov's call for input, Michael responded that: Section 5.1.3 explictly states what to do when originating to an etternal peer. #2 covers one hop away, #3 covers more than on hop away. #1 talks about sending to an iBGP peer, but only when propergating a route received from an eBGP peer. 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. Text similar to #2 shoud be added, in their own bullit items to #1 such as what was suggested by Jonathan Natale (text is above.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. The textual changes are listed at the end of the discussion section of this issue. Discussion: This discussion started in issue 21: Authentication Text Update. This topic has come up before (July timeframe), but was recently refreshed in the context of issue 21. It began with some questions to the list as to who used what sort of authentication mechanisms. From the responses it was clear that MD5 (RFC2385) was the prefered method. Eric Gray's message helps to flesh this out: The question is not whether MD5 authentication is used, it is how is it implemented in real BGP implementations or - more importantly - where is the authentication information located in the packets sent between two BGP peers? This is not strictly an implementation issue because authentication information is located in different places depending on which version of MD5 authentication is in use. As is generally known, options are not necessarily good. Currently, between RFC 1771 and RFC 2385, there are two very distinct ways to accomplish a semantically identical function. If the mechanism defined in RFC 1771 is not supported by a number of interoperable implementations, it must be deprecated per RFC 2026 prior to advancing the specification to Draft Standard. If it is not implemented and actually in use, it should be deprecated if for no other reason than to make the To this Yakov responded: To be more precise, In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those options or features are removed. So, the relevant question is whether we have at least two implementations that support authentication as described in rfc1771. Folks who implemented authentication, as described in rfc1771, please speak up. There have been no responses to Yakov's question. There seems to be a consensus that, since it is little used, and since there are better mechanisms, namely MD5 authentication, we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771. Ok, after some disucssion, this is a list of the text that we are adding, changing or removing: 1) Remove the reference to the authentication optional parameter: I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet Authentication Code followed by a variable length Authentication Data. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth. Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Authentication Data | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Authentication Code: This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an authentication mechanism is specified for use within BGP, three things must be included in the specification: - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates use of the mechanism, - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be used in establishing the transport level connection. Authentication Data: Authentication Data is a variable length field that is interpreted according to the value of the Authentication Code field. 2) Update the introduction: In section 2 (Introduction), sixth paragraph From: BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. To: BGP uses TCP [RFC793] as its transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. BGP listens on TCP port 179. Any authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be used. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that TCP supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. 3) Update the message header format section: From: Marker: This 16-octet field contains a value that the receiver of the message can predict. If the Type of the message is OPEN, or if the OPEN message carries no Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the Marker must be all ones. Otherwise, the value of the marker can be predicted by some a computation specified as part of the authentication mechanism (which is specified as part of the Authentication Information) used. The Marker can be used to detect loss of synchronization between a pair of BGP peers, and to authenticate incoming BGP messages. To: Marker: This 16-octet field is included for compatibility; it must be set to all ones. 4) Update the Message Header error handling section: In section 6.1 (Message Header error handling), second paragraph From: The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones if the message type is OPEN. The expected value of the Marker field for all other types of BGP messages determined based on the presence of the Authentication Information Optional Parameter in the BGP OPEN message and the actual authentication mechanism (if the Authentication Information in the BGP OPEN message is present). If the Marker field of the message header is not the expected one, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. To: The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones. If the Marker field of the message header is not as expected, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. 5) Remove a paragraph from the OPEN mesage error handling section (section 6.2): If the OPEN message carries Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the corresponding authentication procedure is invoked. If the authentication procedure (based on Authentication Code and Authentication Data) fails, then the Error Subcode is set to Authentication Failure. 6) Update the "Differences from RFC1771 Appendix" Text not listed here 7) Fix the hole in the numbering by updating: From: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): To: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Optional parameter type 1, Authentication Information, has been deprecated. We are at consensus with these changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63) Clarify MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: What behavior should we specify for an absent MED? Discussion: This discussion began when Jonathan posted a question to the list: In reference to: "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route" Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it cannot. Juniper??? Other code??? Change to "SHOULD"??? Enke responded that: As the MED value is treated as zero when the MED attribute is missing, removing the MED attribute is really equivalent to setting the value to zero. Based on this logic, one can argue that "MED removal" is supported by multiple vendors. However, I do see that the current text can be consolidated and cleaned up: ------------------------ 5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC ... A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). ------------------------- How about this: A BGP speaker MUST implement a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the value of MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute of a received route to be altered. This shall be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). -------------------------- In responding to a question, Enke also added: > Humm. I thought with a missing MED it was prefereable to be treated as > worst not as 0. It was changed a long time ago. Please see the following text in Sect. 9.1.2.2 of the draft: In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. Curtis replied to Enke: If Juniper treats missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC as worst and Cisco has a knob to treat missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC as worst, then IMHO we should change the spec to say that MED(n) returns the largest value possible is MULTI_EXIT_DISC is missing since this has better loop suppression bahaviour if the placement of MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal is moved in its position in the flow from Adj-In-RIB to Loc-RIB to Adj-Rib-Out. In other words, no matter where the removal takes place, we are loop free without special rules about comparing EBGP before MED removal and then IBGP after MED removal. The only argument for MED(n) going to zero for missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC was that Cisco routers did that (and change would pose an operational issue if there wasn't a knob to facilitate the change). Note that when explicitly jamming a MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, such as zero, the issue of where in the decision process the MULTI_EXIT_DISC learned from the EBGP peers could still be used becomes a concern again. Unfortunately these implementation hints are necessary to remain loop free and so its hard to declare them out of scope, unless we forbid changing MULTI_EXIT_DISC and just allow it to be removed (which does not reflect current practice). Curtis also added: The other issue was MED handling. In "5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC": A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). This doesn't sufficiently address the issue. The MED step in the decision process is (in 9.1.2.2): c) Remove from consideration routes with less-preferred MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes. MULTI_EXIT_DISC is only comparable between routes learned from the same neighboring AS. Routes which do not have the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute are considered to have the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value. This is also described in the following procedure: for m = all routes still under consideration for n = all routes still under consideration if (neighborAS(m) == neighborAS(n)) and (MED(n) < MED(m)) remove route m from consideration In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. The problem is that a route loop can be formed. To avoid the route loop, two suggestions were made (2-3 years ago and nothing was done). One was to make MED(n) return infinity if there was no MULTI_EXIT_DISC. The other was to consider MULTI_EXIT_DISC in the decision process only for the purpose of selecting among the EBGP peers, then remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC, then use that best route in comparisons to IBGP learned routes. The statement in 5.1.4 "This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2)" does not sufficiently address this. This implies that you MAY also remove after route selection, in which case field experience indicates you WILL get burned (unless you know about the caveat above). Initially this came up as an interoperability issue but later it was proven (in the field) that a Cisco and another Cisco could form a route loop until Cisco made this change. Additional wording is needed either in 5.1.4 or in 9.1.2.2. I suggest we put a forward reference in 5.1.4: [...]. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. Then in 9.1.2.2 add a clarificatio to the neighborAS(n) function and add to the existing text. Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route, not the internal AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. The loop is the classic I prefer your and you prefer mine problem. It occurs when the router is configured to remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertise out a route so other routers can use IGP cost to select the best route. If two routers do this, as soon as they hear the route with no MULTI_EXIT_DISC from the other peer they start forwarding toward that peer but they continue to advertise to it since others IBPG peers are expected to select among the MULTI_EXIT_DISC free IBGP learned routes using the next step in the decision process, IGP cost. In this case, what you want is each router to prefer its own EBGP route, even though it has a MULTI_EXIT_DISC and the IBGP learned route from the same neighbor AS has had its MULTI_EXIT_DISC stripped off (or didn't have one, you can't tell which it is). You then want all of the IBGP peers with a MULTI_EXIT_DISC free route from that AS, or that have stripped the MULTI_EXIT_DISC to form one, to advertise them. Others in the AS will then use IGP cost to further resolve which exit point to use. It make a difference when the route is the aggregate route of another major provider. IGP cost yields what ISPs call "hot potatoe routing" and MED selects among multiple heavily loaded provider interconnects. [Aside: Having a missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC default to infinity would do exactly what the ISPs want it to do in the first place and be a lot easier to explain but we didn't fix that 2-3 years ago when the issue came up even though we had WG consensus that it was the right thing to do. The authors didn't act on it at the time (because Cisco didn't do it that way and the authors preferred to sit on the draft). At this point we might as well adequately document what we ended up with.... End of soapbox. I don't take myself all that seriously so others shouldn't either. :-)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64) MED for Originated Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that there is not need to specify default values for MED in the base draft. Discussion: This issue began when it was pointed out that we do not specify the default values for MED in the base draft. There were a variety of responses, but the consensus is that since this is not relevant for interoperability, this does not need to be in the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do we change the rules for aggregating routes with different MED's and NEXT_HOPs? Discussion: There is a proposal to relax this statement: "Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP." In his reply to the original mail, Curtis asserted that we should leave the MED rules alone, but perhaps we could relax the NEXT_HOP statement. This was revisited in the "aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP" thread. There is no consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do we remove a section of the spec that has to do with an aggregation scheme that is rarely used? Discussion: Jonathan opened this discussion with: The part in the draft about complex AS path aggregation could/should be deleted. The current draft implies that when aggregating, for example (1st): 1 2 4 3 w/ 3 4 6 5 and 5 6 7 8 then 1 2 {3 4 5 6} 7 8 ...would be OK AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: (2nd)putting ONLY the local AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating 1 giant set and adding the local AS as a seq. So he proposed we remove this to reflect current code. Jeff replied that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing complex aggregation, and there is no reason to remove this from the specification. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Is how we count AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* covered suffiecently in the current draft? Discussion: Jonathan brought up some questions on how current implementations count AS_SET and AS_CONFED_* There were a variety of resposnes to this, answering his questions. Curtis pointed out that this behavior is covered in: That's in 9.1.2.2: a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. Jonathan replied that this might be at odds with what Juniper does, although he was unsure, and asked for clarification. This was discussed in the "New Issue AS path" thread. --RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Changelog.txt" CHANGELOG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.2 to v1.3 2002-10-16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 64) MED for Originated Routes 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP 66) Complex AS Path Aggregating 67) Counting AS_SET/AS_CONFED_* List of issues that are NOT at consensus Updated: 8) Jitter Text 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 12) TCP Behavior Wording 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 34) Timer & Counter Definition 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 Moved FROM Consensus: 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 Moved to Consensus: 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 34) Timer & Counter Definition 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.2 to v1.2.1 2002-10-01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 63) Clarify MED Removal Text TOC) Added issues 62 and 63 to the table of contents. Moved to Consensus: 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.1.1 to v1.2 2002-10-01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text Updated: 1) IDR WG Charter 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasable Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text Moved to Consensus: 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer (closed in favor of issue 61) 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 59) Section 4.3 - Move text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.1 to v1.1.1 2002-09-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 5) Direct EBGP Peers Added the "consensus" line in the actual issue description. TOC) Added issue 61 to the table-of-contents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.0 to v1.1 2002-09-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes Updated: 5) Direct EBGP Peers 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section Moved to Consensus: 5) Direct EBGP Peers 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Sectioules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP --RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08414 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 87F0D91286; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4940391287; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC71991286 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A1EE35DDCB; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFEC5DDBF for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roque-bsd.juniper.net (roque-bsd.juniper.net [172.17.12.183]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9GHGJm25275; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:16:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roque@juniper.net) Received: (from roque@localhost) by roque-bsd.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g9GHGJK09161; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:16:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roque) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200210161716.g9GHGJK09161@roque-bsd.juniper.net> From: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nicolas REBIERRE <Nicolas.Rebierre@alcatel.fr> Cc: idr@merit.edu, christophe preguica <Christophe.Preguica@alcatel.fr> Subject: IPv6 link-local address added as NH In-Reply-To: <3DAD61CB.6A5BF9D8@nmu.alcatel.fr> References: <3DAD61CB.6A5BF9D8@nmu.alcatel.fr> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Nicolas REBIERRE writes: > Hi all, I do not understand why is it necessary to add a link-local > address on the NH in some cases as specified in the RFC 2545 "MP-BGP > for IPv6". What is the difference between adding a route with a ll@ > as next hop in the Routing database and adding one with a global > address as NH ? If you have a multi-access interface, ipv6 implicitly requires you to install routes with a link-local address nexthop. This because, if hosts are present on the same link, you might need to send an icmp redirect message, which may only be sent in terms of a link local address. Since in BGP you don't want to know what are the characteristics of the link, the link-local address is exchanged between directly connected peers regardless of the link type. regards, Pedro. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA24534 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0070791279; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C85989127A; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F63791279 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 239B75DFFE; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (colt-na6.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C2E5DFF7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nmu.alcatel.fr (tcmh80.nmu.alcatel.fr [139.54.143.3]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/NETFR) with ESMTP id g9GD0oWJ014997 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:00:50 +0200 Received: from nmu.alcatel.fr (hoedic [192.200.245.152]) by nmu.alcatel.fr (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA10918; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:59:30 +0200 (METDST) Message-ID: <3DAD61CB.6A5BF9D8@nmu.alcatel.fr> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:55:39 +0200 From: Nicolas REBIERRE <Nicolas.Rebierre@alcatel.fr> Organization: Alcatel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@merit.edu, christophe preguica <Christophe.Preguica@alcatel.fr> Subject: IPv6 link-local address added as NH Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3E41AD91B7B34532097C3DA4" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3E41AD91B7B34532097C3DA4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I do not understand why is it necessary to add a link-local address on the NH in some cases as specified in the RFC 2545 "MP-BGP for IPv6". What is the difference between adding a route with a ll@ as next hop in the Routing database and adding one with a global address as NH ? Thanks, Christophe. [Please note I'm posting this mail on behalf of Christophe, whose posts seem not to appear on the mailing list.] --------------3E41AD91B7B34532097C3DA4 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="nicolas.rebierre.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Nicolas REBIERRE Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nicolas.rebierre.vcf" begin:vcard n:REBIERRE;Nicolas tel;fax:(+33) 1 69 63 15 18 tel;work:(+33) 1 69 63 44 09 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Alcatel;CTO/Enabling Software adr:;;Route de Nozay;Marcoussis;;91460;France version:2.1 email;internet:nicolas.rebierre@alcatel.fr title:CAIPv6 Engineer fn:Nicolas REBIERRE end:vcard --------------3E41AD91B7B34532097C3DA4-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA13657 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 03:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id C89F491270; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 03:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7F66B91271; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 03:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202A991270 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 03:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0AF825DF50; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 03:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9215DE30 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 03:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA08061; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:28:17 -0700 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 11.2 Message-ID: <20021016002817.U19929@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFC@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> <200210021556.LAA64207@workhorse.fictitious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210021556.LAA64207@workhorse.fictitious.org>; from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:56:36AM -0400 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, Thank you for pointing out that this issue did not get resolved. Curtis, It sounds like you hit the nail on the head here. To reiterate, we have 3 options: 1. Omit it (the implied consensus of the rewrite of the paragraph in 32.2). 2. Leave it as is and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. 3. Clean up the wording and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. We now need to decide on which one we want to do. I've updated the issue list, and reopened this issue. A slew of possible texts have flown about, and I have left them out of the issue list since they complicate the discussion, until we decide which option we are going to pursue. Andrew On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:56:36AM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu > To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org > Subject: issue 11.2 (was Re: Active Route) > In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:19:49 EDT." > <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFC@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> > Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:56:36 -0400 > From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> > Precedence: bulk > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2002 15:59:36.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[B4CCA150:01C26A2C] > > > In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFC@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor > ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > Folks, > > > > This issue seems to have been convoluted into issue 32.2. I am in agreement > > with 32.2 (other than style/conciseness--I think it is a little long winded, > > but I can live with it), but it is not what I raised. > > > > The issue I raised, and would like to be [re-]considered is with: > > > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers > > (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only > > those routes that it itself uses." > > > That is called route orgination and it is allowed by: > > 9.4 Originating BGP routes > > A BGP speaker may originate BGP routes by injecting routing > information acquired by some other means (e.g. via an IGP) into BGP. > [...] The decision whether to distribute non-BGP > acquired routes within an AS via BGP or not depends on the > environment within the AS (e.g. type of IGP) and should be controlled > via configuration. > > Advice on what to put in the AS_PATH and NEXT_HOP is in the document. > > > This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp route to a > > destination but does not have bgp route to the same destination (for > > example, based on administrative distance), then the speaker may not > > advertise that route to it's peers. This is true on Juniper by default for > > EBGP, but is NOT TRUE [ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on > > Juniper if ~= "advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on > > Cisco. > > [...] The decision whether to distribute non-BGP > acquired routes within an AS via BGP or not depends on the > environment within the AS (e.g. type of IGP) and should be controlled > via configuration. > > > Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be completely removed. > > This means that it will be allowable to advertise a route to a destination > > that is not locally reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- > > which is why it should not be removed) bad. > > > > Thank you. > > In the summary, one of the entries is incorrect: > > 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 > > ... > > Since this issue and issue 32.2 are very similar, and 32.2 is at consensus, > this issue has also been moved to consensus in favor of 32.2. > > These are not the same so the entry in Andrews summary is wrong. > > We never reached full consensus on 11.2 but seemed to have more > support for either 1) leaving it as, 2) take it out. There were some > semantic arguments about what it meant to "use" a route with a few > people offering an interpretation of "use" that would make the > statement false under some conditions. > > I suggest that we change 11.2 and return it to "no consensus". > > The edit to change the same paragraph in 32.2 was to reflect the > intent of the paragraph to indicate that BGP supports destination > based routing and not some form of source specified routing. > > I don't think there was ever consensus on what to do with the > statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers > which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that > it itself uses". Some reasonable choices are: > > 1. Omit it (the implied consensus of the rewrite of the paragraph > in 32.2). > > 2. Leave it as is and put it in another paragraph to separate it > from the destination based routing statement. > > 3. Clean up the wording and put it in another paragraph to separate > it from the destination based routing statement. > > The separate paragraph for 2 would be the exact sentence we now have. > > A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it > communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it > itself uses. > > In possibility 3 we (try to) clear up the ambiguity about the meaning > of the word "use" in this sentence. > > A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it > communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it > itself uses. In this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP > route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is either directly > used in forwarding or in a specifically configured case where the > BGP route would be forwarded internally but IGP forwarding > information is used. The latter case reflects a usage in which the > IGP is used for forwarding but BGP is originated to IBGP to carry > attributes that cannot be carried by the IGP (for example, BGP > communities [N]). Other special cases such as virtual routers and > multiple instances of BGP on a single router are beyond the scope > of this document but for each of these the statement "a BGP speaker > advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates > with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses" can > (and should in the definition of the extension) be made true with > an appropriate definition of the word "use". > > Unless someone volunteers better wording this may be a good starting > point. I thing the last sentence borders on ridiculous in a protocol > spec but may be necessary to address specific objections raised on > this mailing list. If we want to elaborate on the meaning of the word > "use" and address the objections this is what we end up with. > > Of course looking at what we ended up with, I'd also go along with the > other two options (leave it out or put the one sentence in a separate > paragraph as is). > > Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA29022 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 05:47:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0A79391247; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 05:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C42CA91249; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 05:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4058A91247 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 05:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1A5225DF59; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 05:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mta0 (unknown [61.144.161.10]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397BA5DF52 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 05:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from l04955 (mta0 [172.17.1.62]) by mta0.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with ESMTPA id <0H4000J0FO8QDU@mta0.huawei.com> for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:41:17 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:43:15 +0800 From: lidefeng <lidefeng@huawei.com> Subject: Re: agenda for the IDR WG meeting To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Cc: yakov@juniper.net, skh@nexthop.com, lhj@huawei.com, changwj@huawei.com, "Fu Y. Miao" <miaofy@huawei.com>, leh10814@huawei.com Message-id: <000c01c2742f$4942e180$22436e0a@HUAWEI.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200210141852.g9EIqSm56653@merlot.juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi,all, In draft-chunzhe-idr-protection-md5-00.txt, a better mechanism to protect BGP session is presented, and in September mail-list discussion, Pedro Roque Marques(Juniper Networks) and John G.Scudder(Cisco System) presented some arguements respectively,and we gave the interpretations corresponding to their arguements and with no results arrived. IMH,this draft is worthwhile to discuss at the Atlanta meeting. We hope you can highlight on this draft and the relevant problem. Thanks and Regards Defeng Li ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net> To: <idr@merit.edu> Cc: <yakov@juniper.net>; <skh@nexthop.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 2:52 AM Subject: agenda for the IDR WG meeting > Folks, > > It is time to start setting the agenda for the Atlanta meeting. > If you want to discuss issues with drafts at the Atlanta meeting > please request a slot to do so, by sending mail to the wg chairs. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28933 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AA50D9120C; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7A1E591241; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455AB9120C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 290F45DF0E; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5DD5DF0B for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9EIqSm56653; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:52:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210141852.g9EIqSm56653@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Cc: yakov@juniper.net, skh@nexthop.com Subject: agenda for the IDR WG meeting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <25311.1034621547.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:52:28 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, It is time to start setting the agenda for the Atlanta meeting. If you want to discuss issues with drafts at the Atlanta meeting please request a slot to do so, by sending mail to the wg chairs. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA21305 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 05:21:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BF493912CF; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 05:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 88A39912D0; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 05:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4600C912CF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 05:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2A83B5E0B9; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 05:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from wiprom2mx1.wipro.com (wiprom2mx1.wipro.com [203.197.164.41]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BE85DDCE for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 05:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2vwall2 (m2vwall2.wipro.com [164.164.29.236]) by wiprom2mx1.wipro.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g999L1209679 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:51:01 +0530 (IST) Received: from blr-m1-bh1.wipro.com ([10.115.50.91]) by ace.mail.wipro.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id H3PJAU01.HHR; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:50:55 +0530 Received: from blr-k1-msg.wipro.com ([10.117.50.99]) by blr-m1-bh1.wipro.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:50:54 +0530 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPartTM-000-a264d77e-dfc0-4a04-af00-5b68f030c23a" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Subject: RE: draft-ietf-idr-restart-05.txt Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:50:54 +0530 Message-ID: <4D148FEC6C003445B94D5B264288DBE92463EE@blr-k1-msg.wipro.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-idr-restart-05.txt Thread-Index: AcJvYbaSFNrlRZ88QZOkLvGX6fpvzwAEvNhQ From: "Shankar" <shankar.kambat@wipro.com> To: "Manav Bhatia" <manav@samsung.com>, <idr@merit.edu> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2002 09:20:54.0882 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B57B420:01C26F75] Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPartTM-000-a264d77e-dfc0-4a04-af00-5b68f030c23a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, IMHO, this is to address the route-flapping issues in BGP. The = forwarding Plane is not disturbed, i.e.. the data traffic is not disturbed when BGP = restarts.=20 Hence the restart is only in the control plane and not in the data = plane. Regds Shankar K A Hi, I have a question regarding the graceful restart capability in BGP. In = the draft-ietf-idr-restart-05.txt it doesn't talk anything about the = forwarding plane. The draft just talks about what is applicable when the BGP restarts. Why doesn't it explicitly say anything about forwarding plane and control = plane as in OSPF draft? Does it mean that even if forwarding plane goes down = also this is applicable? Can somebody please throw some light on this issue. Is it a mandatory requirement to have your forwarding plane up, when = your BGP restarts? Am I missing something? Regards, Manav ------=_NextPartTM-000-a264d77e-dfc0-4a04-af00-5b68f030c23a Content-Type: text/plain; name="Wipro_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Wipro_Disclaimer.txt" **************************Disclaimer************************************************** Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. **************************************************************************************** ------=_NextPartTM-000-a264d77e-dfc0-4a04-af00-5b68f030c23a-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA16603 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 03:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DFC87912CB; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 02:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B3497912CC; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 02:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE86912CB for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 02:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 917275DE8C; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 02:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from realname (unknown [203.254.224.24]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435F65DE8A for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 02:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from custom-daemon.mailout1.samsung.com by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) id <0H3P00C0FCYIYF@mailout1.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:03:54 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H3P00CA5CYEJ0@mailout1.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:03:51 +0900 (KST) Received: from Manav ([107.108.3.180]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with ESMTPA id <0H3P001BGCZCUN@mmp2.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:04:25 +0900 (KST) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 12:27:07 +0530 From: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Subject: draft-ietf-idr-restart-05.txt To: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Message-id: <02ad01c26f61$15cef230$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi, I have a question regarding the graceful restart capability in BGP. In the draft-ietf-idr-restart-05.txt it doesn't talk anything about the forwarding plane. The draft just talks about what is applicable when the BGP restarts. Why doesn't it explicitly say anything about forwarding plane and control plane as in OSPF draft? Does it mean that even if forwarding plane goes down also this is applicable? Can somebody please throw some light on this issue. Is it a mandatory requirement to have your forwarding plane up, when your BGP restarts? Am I missing something? Regards, Manav Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28645 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DD7339124E; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:37:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A70B991251; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:37:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337B89124E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 156405E00B; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from nemesis.systems.pipex.net (nemesis.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.8]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C655DD94 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tom3 (usermg27.uk.uudial.com [62.188.122.13]) by nemesis.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 680FB16008B9D; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:37:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <014601c26e16$f65fbb00$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: <curtis@fictitious.org> Cc: <curtis@fictitious.org>, "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net>, "idr" <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: Generial Editorial Comment Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:33:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yes, I like the change from "will attempt to connect" with "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise". I don't like the active/passive; we have active already defined as part of the FSM (Aug02 version) " In this state BGP is trying to acquire a peer by listening for and accepting a transport protocol connection" and I think this goes far enough. Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Cc: curtis@fictitious.org <curtis@fictitious.org>; Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>; idr <idr@merit.edu> Date: 30 September 2002 15:31 Subject: Re: Generial Editorial Comment > >I I take issue with the 'will attempt to connect' which goes too far. >> >> The FSM defines events 4 and 5, 'with passive Transport >> establishment', so the system may wait and not attempt to connect. >> The exit from this state is either the receipt of an incoming TCP >> connection (SYN) or timer expiry. >> >> So we may have a FSM attempting to transport connect for a given >> source/destination IP pair or we may have an FSM not attempting to >> connect. (In the latter case, I do not think we can get a collision). >> In the latter case, an incoming connection should not generate an >> additional FSM. >> >> I do not believe the concept of active and passive is helpful since a >> given system can flip from one to the other and it does not help us to >> clarify the number of FSM involved.. >> >> Tom Petch >> nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > > >Could this be corrected by replacing "will attempt to connect" with >"unless configured to remain in the idle state, or configured to >remain passive, will attempt to connect". We could also shorten that >to "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise". > >Clarification (perhaps an item for a glossary entry): > > The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for almost > a decade and have proven useful. The words active and passive have > slightly different meanings applied to a TCP connection or applied > to a peer. There is only one active side and one passive side to > any one TCP connection as per the definition below. When a BGP > speaker is configured passive it will never attempt to connect. If > a BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the > active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets > established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't > matter which end was active and which end was passive and the only > difference is which side of the TCP connection has port number 179. > >We're going to make this a very long document if we add "unless >configured otherwise" to hundreds of places in the document just to >make it absolutely correct. Maybe we should issue a moritorium on >"unless configured otherwise" changes. :-) > >Curtis > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> >> To: Natale, Jonathan <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> >> Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org' <curtis@fictitious.org>; Yakov Rekhter >> <yakov@juniper.net>; Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>; Abarbanel, Benjamin >> <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>; idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> >> Date: 26 September 2002 18:27 >> Subject: Re: Generial Editorial Comment >> >> >> > >> >In message >> <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAB8@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor >> >ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: >> >> Wrong. >> >> >> >> " If the source IP address used >> >> by one of these connections is the same as the destination IP >> address >> >> used by the other, and the destination IP address used by the >> first >> >> connection is the same as the source IP address used by the >> other, we >> >> refer to this situation as connection collision." >> >> - draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17 >> > >> >You're correct in that you must have a collision of IP addresses on >> >the TCP connections and that the BGP Identifier is used only to >> >resolve which gets dropped. >> > >> >The FSM stays around as long as "BGP Identifier" is not known. >> >Replace "not known with certainty" with "known but the BGP identifier >> >is not known" and replace "for the same peer" with "for the same >>configured peering". >> > >> >The first paragraph is unchanged: >> > >> > BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP >> > peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to >> the >> > other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect >> > side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN >> packet) >> > is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of >> > the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. >> > >> >The second paragraph becomes: >> > >> > A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 >> for >> > incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. >> > For each incoming connection, a state machine must be >> instantiated. >> > There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the >> > other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP >> identifier >> > is not known. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing >> > connection for the same configured peering may exist. This is >> > referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). >> > >> >The next paragraph then needs to get fixed. Changed "for each peer" >> >to "for each configured peering". >> > >> > A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured >> > peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which >> the >> > peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly >> > one TCP connection. >> > >> >Add a paragraph to further clarify the point you made. >> > >> > There may be more than one connection between a pair of peers if >> > the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP >> > addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" >> > to the same peer. >> > >> >> So multiple simultaneous BGP connection are allowed between the >> same two >> >> peers, and this behavior is implemented, for example to do load >> balancing. >> > >> >Good point. >> > >> >I hope the corrections above cover your (entirely valid) objections. >> >If you see any more errors please let me know. >> > >> >Curtis >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:34 AM >> >> To: Yakov Rekhter >> >> Cc: Alex Zinin; Abarbanel, Benjamin; idr@merit.edu >> >> Subject: Re: Generial Editorial Comment >> >> >> >> >> >> In message <200209230109.g8N19Sm03424@merlot.juniper.net>, Yakov >> Rekhter >> >> writes >> >> : >> >> > Alex, >> >> > >> >> > > Defining terms like this in a separate section would be really >> nice. >> >> > > (BTW, I personally think using "BGP session" which works over a >> "TCP >> >> > > connection" would be closer to the terminology we're actually >> using >> >> > > now and would avoid possible confusions when people read terms >> like >> >> > > "Connection collision") It would also be great if we had >> descriptions >> >> > > for all data structures that are not explicitly defined (e.g., >> the >> >> > > current spec has no notion of a peer data structure), timers, >> etc. >> >> > > >> >> > > Two other things that I think would make sense to explicitly >> >> > > define are >> >> > > >> >> > > - processing of incoming TCP connections (peer lookup, >> acceptance, >> >> > > FSM creation, collision control,) >> >> > > >> >> > > - generation of events while processing BGP messages, i.e., >> >> > > the text describing message processing should say where >> >> > > needed that a specific event for the BGP session should >> >> > > be generated. >> >> > >> >> > Please suggest the appropriate text. >> >> > >> >> > yakov. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yakov, >> >> >> >> Here is some suggestion. I don't know where in the document you'd >> >> like to put this or whether you would prefer to omit it. That's up >> to >> >> you. >> >> >> >> BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each >> BGP >> >> peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to >> the >> >> other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or >> connect >> >> side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN >> packet) >> >> is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender >> of >> >> the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. >> >> >> >> A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 >> for >> >> incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. >> For >> >> each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. >> >> There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the >> other >> >> end of an incoming connection is not known with certainty. >> During >> >> this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same >> >> peer may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision >> (see >> >> Section x.x, was 6.8). >> >> >> >> A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each peer plus >> >> one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has >> not >> >> yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP >> >> connection. >> >> >> >> The above covers Alex's first request only. >> >> >> >> Curtis >> >> >> >> >> Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27546 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D2AA69124F; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A27059124E; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B2691251 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0D7D95DD9D; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3225DD94 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g97F3ok41661; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:03:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g97F3kC41654; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:03:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g97F3kQ01071; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:03:46 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Active Route - OT Message-ID: <20021007110346.A581@nexthop.com> References: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F25@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> <3D9D5734.8B38A91D@alcatel.be> <20021004105951.C11052@nexthop.com> <3DA19CE1.116C2454@alcatel.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3DA19CE1.116C2454@alcatel.be>; from hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be on Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:40:33PM +0200 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hans, On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:40:33PM +0200, hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be wrote: > A well-kown and documented exception is when route aggregation is used. > A new TLV "atomic aggregate" was defined to indicate this. And its important to note that this is not only explicitly configured aggregation, this is implicit aggregation any time a less specific and a more specific route are being aggregated by a less specific one. > Other execptions are also known to happen (the example of the IGP route > in the FIB for a route route also learned by IBGP). Those cases will make > that the AS-path send along with a route may not be correct without > notice of this fact. Those exceptions not not nessesarily cause problems, > however they should be considered as 'bad practice' Any re-origination of a route that loses path information may potentially lead to loops. > The main purpose for sending round the AS-Path attributes is to avoid loops. > Any other use of the attribute (e.g. for applying policies) is not guaranteed > to work in all cases. > > > Hope this is correct? Pretty much. > Hans. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26749 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BF50D9124D; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 88E8B9124E; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523DE9124D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:40:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3783D5E001; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:40:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mail.alcatel.be (alc250.alcatel.be [195.207.101.250]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DDC5DDA5 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (relay3 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alcatel.be (8.11.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g97EY0x18386 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:34:00 +0200 Received: from alcatel.be ([138.203.191.116]) by Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002100716403377:6198 ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:40:33 +0200 Message-ID: <3DA19CE1.116C2454@alcatel.be> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:40:33 +0200 From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Active Route - OT References: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F25@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> <3D9D5734.8B38A91D@alcatel.be> <20021004105951.C11052@nexthop.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/07/2002 16:40:33, Serialize by Router on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/07/2002 16:40:35, Serialize complete at 10/07/2002 16:40:35 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeffrey et al, from the reactions on this topic, my understanding of the validity of the AS-path attribute assigned to a route becomes something like: The AS-path associated with a route is meant to be correct. A well-kown and documented exception is when route aggregation is used. A new TLV "atomic aggregate" was defined to indicate this. Other execptions are also known to happen (the example of the IGP route in the FIB for a route route also learned by IBGP). Those cases will make that the AS-path send along with a route may not be correct without notice of this fact. Those exceptions not not nessesarily cause problems, however they should be considered as 'bad practice' The main purpose for sending round the AS-Path attributes is to avoid loops. Any other use of the attribute (e.g. for applying policies) is not guaranteed to work in all cases. Hope this is correct? --- Hans. Jeffrey Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:54:12AM +0200, hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be wrote: > > Well, I tend to be picky on the attributes. Why do we forward them, or have long > > discussions about then (as the ones I see ongoing for e.g. the AS-PATH) if in > > the end the attribute is not trustworthy? > > That was what ATOMIC_AGGREGATE was intended to signal. > > One of the problems with creating aggregates without full path information > is that you can't tell if there are contributors that you might loop to. > You essentially must count on the more specifics being present > or being far enough away from things to not be affected by a potential > looping situation. > > Thankfully, this seems to often be the case. > > Dennis points out that people largely form aggregates along their > assigned address boundaries anyway. So long as proxy aggregation > doesn't happen all over the place, we're fine with incomplete path > information. > > > What is e.g. the value of a routing policy saying that "I do not want to use > > routes that to pass via this particular AS". > > The fact that it lets you shape your packet flows. Even a coarse > control is better than none. And when none is available, people > will sometimes internally de-aggregate in order to get that control. > > > Unless of course, my whole appreciation of the atributes is wrong. But in this > > case it would be good to indicate what can and cannot be expected from an > > attribute. > > Honestly, its best to *not* expect anything beyond guaranteeing loop > free routing. The fact that you can *try* is an operational decision. > It might even work. > > > So we would probaby end up with an indicator in the route saying " attributes > > not guaranteed", but then again i think i prefer the restriction in the RFC. > > We could also say that everyone must propagate every route that enters > the routing system. I rather suspect network operators and other > implementators would tell us where to put that suggestion. > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA21785 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 232D591242; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:59:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E2E9C91244; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D95C91242 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5861F5DE70; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279455DD9E for <idr@merit.edu>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tom3 (userbl60.uk.uudial.com [62.188.144.167]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A2E8C16001145; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:59:38 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <049601c26d83$3cdf3680$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: <idr@merit.edu>, "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net> Subject: Re: issue 8 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:51:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk The FSM also introduces an OpenDelay timer which then should be included. I don't have any experience of a suitable setting; I imagine it would be commensurate with, perhaps a multiple of, the ConnectRetryTimer. FSM also in places suggests a Hold Timer of 4 minutes. Likewise, I cannot suggest a resolution ( but can point out a potential discrepancy:-( Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> Date: 02 October 2002 16:49 Subject: issue 8 >Folks, > >I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: > > BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time > (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval > (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see > Section 9.2.1.1). > > The suggested value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. > > The suggested value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. > > The suggested value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold > Time. > > The suggested value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 > seconds. > > The suggested value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 > seconds. > > An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be > configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. > > To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages > by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be > applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, > Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A > given BGP speaker shall apply the same jitter to each of these > quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates > are being sent; that is, jitter will not be applied on a "per > peer" basis. > >Any objections ? > >Yakov. > > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > 1.0. > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06411 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4176491386; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0E4E091384; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:21:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAB491387 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9BB6D5DDEE; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from bridge.axiowave.com (unknown [64.115.125.242]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060015DEEB for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <EB5FFC72F183D411B3820006295734290125F49E@r2d2.axiowave.com> From: Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@axiowave.com> To: "'Dennis Ferguson'" <dennis@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:21:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Dennis, > > What you describe is a reasonable way to do this function, but I think > the fact that it actually depends on the combination of component route > AS paths into the aggregate route's AS path for the purpose of ensuring > correct, loop-free routing, and that it can't be safely simulated by simple > redistribution policy, makes it unique enough to require more explanation > than just a conceptual statement. It can be approached at a slightly different angle. It is true that what I've described requires more strict adherence to the aggregation rules specified in the draft-17 document than in the most other aggregation cases. However it may be better, if deemed necessary, to specify in the aggregation section when and how the currently specified rules can be relaxed. > > Dennis Ferguson Regards, Dimitry Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03571 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:56:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0A33E91205; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D03BF91384; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5B791205 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B4D935DEEC; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7F05DEE4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26035; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09735; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7R86C>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:05 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F38@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'John G. Scudder'" <jgs@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route - OT Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk According to the definition of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE. It discusses loss of information due to aggregation, not due to other means like choosing an IGP route over IBGP. If that were mentioned I would agree the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE covers it all. Plus, the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE says receiving peers cannot deaggregate the route to a more specific components, mainly because all the AS_Paths of the component routes are not present in the aggregated route. This is completely different than choosing an IGP route over an IBGP route. In my case, most likely none of the AS_PATHS are in the IBGP route. I think you guys are trying to merge everything into existing stuff that does not cover it in all cases. Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: John G. Scudder [mailto:jgs@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:27 AM > To: Jeffrey Haas > Cc: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be; idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Active Route - OT > > > At 10:59 AM -0400 10/4/02, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > Unless of course, my whole appreciation of the atributes is > >wrong. But in this > >> case it would be good to indicate what can and cannot be > expected from an > >> attribute. > > > >Honestly, its best to *not* expect anything beyond guaranteeing loop > >free routing. The fact that you can *try* is an operational > decision. > >It might even work. > > Indeed, and this has been called out in the spec for a very long time > now, in the case of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE. From 5.1.6: > > A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE > attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the > actual path to > destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, > while having the > loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH > attribute of the route. > > Consider this statement in combination with your earlier observation > that in effect, everything is an atomic aggregate (or at least, must > be treated as if it were). > > --John > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02930 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:37:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1F6E791381; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C6B6C91386; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B5891381 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A08AC5DEDC; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB1A5DE3C for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23028; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02564; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7R7LD>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:44 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F37@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route - OT Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:02 AM > To: Abarbanel, Benjamin > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Active Route - OT > > > Ben, > > [is there any need to quote the entirety of messages?] > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:26:02AM -0400, Abarbanel, Benjamin wrote: > > Agreed, but as your example shows its possible to violate > the AS path > > traversel > > and not really forward packets along the path that the peer > thinks is > > happening. Therefore, one solution would be not to > advertise the route if > > the Routing Table and the BGP Loc-Rib/Adj-Rib-out(peer) do > not agree 100% on > > the useage of that route. > > Please see my long original post on deprecating atomic_aggregate. > Then please read Dennis Ferguson's posts on how the lack of > full path information in aggregates isn't too much of a concern. > > These reflect deployed reality. You're talking about a spec change. > Denying a route is not a spec change, but a policy decision. Ben > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02832 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id C172491212; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7088191384; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF4B91212 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 084475DEE4; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from cisco.com (router.cisco.com [171.69.182.20]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B82C5DEDC for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [171.69.182.140] (dhcp-171-69-182-140.cisco.com [171.69.182.140]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06050; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jgs@router Message-Id: <p05111a02b9c36307fdc7@[192.168.42.10]> In-Reply-To: <20021004105951.C11052@nexthop.com> References: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F25@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> <3D9D5734.8B38A91D@alcatel.be> <20021004105951.C11052@nexthop.com> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:27:19 -0400 To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Active Route - OT Cc: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be, idr@merit.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk At 10:59 AM -0400 10/4/02, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Unless of course, my whole appreciation of the atributes is >wrong. But in this >> case it would be good to indicate what can and cannot be expected from an >> attribute. > >Honestly, its best to *not* expect anything beyond guaranteeing loop >free routing. The fact that you can *try* is an operational decision. >It might even work. Indeed, and this has been called out in the spec for a very long time now, in the case of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE. From 5.1.6: A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Consider this statement in combination with your earlier observation that in effect, everything is an atomic aggregate (or at least, must be treated as if it were). --John Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01805 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 33D2991383; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A46BE91387; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234B391383 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0C54F5DEE4; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB485DEB0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:02:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g94F2JR77343; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:02:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g94F2FC77336; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:02:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g94F2Fn11375; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:02:15 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@marconi.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Active Route - OT Message-ID: <20021004110215.D11052@nexthop.com> References: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F32@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F32@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>; from Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com on Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:26:02AM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Ben, [is there any need to quote the entirety of messages?] On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:26:02AM -0400, Abarbanel, Benjamin wrote: > Agreed, but as your example shows its possible to violate the AS path > traversel > and not really forward packets along the path that the peer thinks is > happening. Therefore, one solution would be not to advertise the route if > the Routing Table and the BGP Loc-Rib/Adj-Rib-out(peer) do not agree 100% on > the useage of that route. Please see my long original post on deprecating atomic_aggregate. Then please read Dennis Ferguson's posts on how the lack of full path information in aggregates isn't too much of a concern. These reflect deployed reality. You're talking about a spec change. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01738 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 408CA91380; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B90D791381; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931F991380 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B56185DEEC; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:00:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3082A5DEE9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g94ExuG77251; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:59:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g94ExpC77240; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:59:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g94ExpA11354; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:59:51 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Active Route - OT Message-ID: <20021004105951.C11052@nexthop.com> References: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F25@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> <3D9D5734.8B38A91D@alcatel.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3D9D5734.8B38A91D@alcatel.be>; from hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be on Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:54:12AM +0200 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:54:12AM +0200, hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be wrote: > Well, I tend to be picky on the attributes. Why do we forward them, or have long > discussions about then (as the ones I see ongoing for e.g. the AS-PATH) if in > the end the attribute is not trustworthy? That was what ATOMIC_AGGREGATE was intended to signal. One of the problems with creating aggregates without full path information is that you can't tell if there are contributors that you might loop to. You essentially must count on the more specifics being present or being far enough away from things to not be affected by a potential looping situation. Thankfully, this seems to often be the case. Dennis points out that people largely form aggregates along their assigned address boundaries anyway. So long as proxy aggregation doesn't happen all over the place, we're fine with incomplete path information. > What is e.g. the value of a routing policy saying that "I do not want to use > routes that to pass via this particular AS". The fact that it lets you shape your packet flows. Even a coarse control is better than none. And when none is available, people will sometimes internally de-aggregate in order to get that control. > Unless of course, my whole appreciation of the atributes is wrong. But in this > case it would be good to indicate what can and cannot be expected from an > attribute. Honestly, its best to *not* expect anything beyond guaranteeing loop free routing. The fact that you can *try* is an operational decision. It might even work. > So we would probaby end up with an indicator in the route saying " attributes > not guaranteed", but then again i think i prefer the restriction in the RFC. We could also say that everyone must propagate every route that enters the routing system. I rather suspect network operators and other implementators would tell us where to put that suggestion. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA01391 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 272869137F; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EC5EB91380; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBB29137F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B781B5DEB0; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C430A5DEEC for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g94EqGc77081; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g94EqDC77074; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g94EqDX11339; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:52:12 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes Message-ID: <20021004105212.B11052@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB37@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB37@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>; from JNatale@celoxnetworks.com on Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:36:53AM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:36:53AM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > The point is: > "the base spec does not say what to set the MED to for originated routes" This is called an implementation decision. You could put a MED in of 2^32-1 if you wanted to and it would still be legal. You would still interoperate. And your customers would get cranky. > ...the fact that Juniper and Cisco chose sensible things to do > is not an argument for the spec to be silent, is it? And why do most routers tend to send a localpref of 100 by default? Do you think that should be in the spec as well? I sincerely hope not. > Also, didn't the old spec say to treat a missing MED as all 1's? In -14, it says the lowest possible value, which until it was clarified, could be considered to be smaller than a value of zero. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA00479 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A15F89137E; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 665259137F; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA799137E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 308ED5DEE6; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB4B5DEE3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18266; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18002; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7RY1V>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F32@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be'" <hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: Active Route - OT Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:26:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hans: > -----Original Message----- > From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > [mailto:hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:54 AM > To: Abarbanel, Benjamin > Cc: BGP mailing list > Subject: Re: Active Route - OT > > > Ben, > > "Abarbanel, Benjamin" wrote: > > > Hans: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > [mailto:hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be] > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:09 AM > > > To: BGP mailing list > > > Subject: Re: Active Route - OT > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > thanks for your feedback on this. Now I tend to be more in > > > favor of leaving > > > the text and the restriction in the RFC. The reasons i see > > > for this are: > > > > > > 1. The effective use of policy is endangered. Supose a bgp > > > speaker announces to > > > its external peer reachability for a route, and indicates > > > that this route > > > passes through AS 1,2 and 3, while at the same time the FIB > > > of the same router > > > would actually send the traffic so that in the end it follows > > > another path > > > passing through a different set of ASses. If this is allowed > > > why would we even > > > bother to pass along attributes? (Also I learned of some > > > people trying to make > > > tools that use the BGP RIB to figure out how traffic is > flowing in the > > > internet). > > > > > > > According to Dennis you are gauranteed that the mix of BGP > and IGP routing > > will prevent any possible loops and get the packet to its > destination. It > > does not gaurantee that the packet will travel the AS_PATH > defined in the > > (i/e)BGP route. Thus, in a way it works and it doesn't, if > you are picky > > about the attributes. > > Well, I tend to be picky on the attributes. Why do we forward > them, or have long > discussions about then (as the ones I see ongoing for e.g. > the AS-PATH) if in > the end the attribute is not trustworthy? > > What is e.g. the value of a routing policy saying that "I do > not want to use > routes that to pass via this particular AS". > Agreed, but as your example shows its possible to violate the AS path traversel and not really forward packets along the path that the peer thinks is happening. Therefore, one solution would be not to advertise the route if the Routing Table and the BGP Loc-Rib/Adj-Rib-out(peer) do not agree 100% on the useage of that route. One other way is to guarantee that a BGP route and IGP route never match on a destination in the routing table, thus you never have this problem. That might require additional policies or such. Somehow I think there will always be a case where they match and thus the problem occurs. > Unless of course, my whole appreciation of the atributes is > wrong. But in this > case it would be good to indicate what can and cannot be > expected from an > attribute. > > > > IMHO, there should be a way to flag that suboptimal > > routing is > > taking place with this route so that any external peers can > make a judgement > > call on the validity of the route provided. For example, > lets say a peer > > knows that this IBGP route is not really used for > forwarding but an IGP > > route > > is for the same destination, it could flag the route with a > new attribute > > saying that suboptimal routing path is used with this > route. The external > > peer receiving the route can reduce its priority so that > the BGP decision > > process can pick another route over this one, thus avoiding the less > > deterministic behavior. > > > > I am not sure that the other route which is used is in fact > 'suboptimal'. The > only thing i really know is that the attributes for the > actual route that is > being taken, will differ from the advertised attributes. > > So we would probaby end up with an indicator in the route > saying " attributes > not guaranteed", but then again i think i prefer the > restriction in the RFC. > In some cases it is not important that a route took a particular AS path, only that it is reachable and not looping. In this sense, my solution will be helpfull to external peers. Whether you call this condition "suboptimal routing" or "no guarantee of path traversal", it flags the issue to external peers so that they could treat the route with a lower priority than the ones that have guaranteed attributes. Policies could be added that could be tailored on a case by case basis to know how to react to such a condition. Ben > > > > > > > > thanks > > > --- > > > Hans De Vleeschouwer > > > > > > > "Natale, Jonathan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > "What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out?" > > > > > > > > > > Then you are mis-configured. > > > > > > > > > > Also, I agree with Curtis--redistributing BGP into IGP is > > > a bad idea. A > > > > > much better idea is to turn off synchronization (rumor > > > was that it will > > > > > be/is off by default in newer IOS). Juniper does not > > > even have a synch > > > > > concept (a good thing). > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Abarbanel, Benjamin > [mailto:Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:41 PM > > > > > To: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > > > Subject: RE: Active Route > > > > > > > > > > Curtis > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Curtis Villamizar > [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM > > > > > > To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > > > > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, > > > > > > hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ > > > > > > es: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same > > > > > > time I forward > > > > > > > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS > > > > > > border routers (bu > > > > > > > t > > > > > > > to no other routers). > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop > > > needs to be in > > > > > > the IGP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router > > > > > > (router B) to pass thos > > > > > > > e > > > > > > > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS > > > > > > via an EBGP connecti > > > > > > > on. > > > > > > > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable > > > via the IGP > > > > > > *not* the BGP prefix itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is never a need to put the destination prefix > > > into the IGP if it > > > > > > is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are > > > originating a > > > > > > prefix and you want it to go out with specific > > > attributes such as > > > > > > specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP > > > communities some > > > > > > special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > > > > > > > > > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP > > > only) routers is by > > > > > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B > > > > > > will forward routes > > > > > > > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for > > > > > > those routes the > > > > > > > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has > > > > > > typically a higher > > > > > > > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the > rule that a > > > > > > BGP speaker > > > > > > > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those > > > > > > routes that it itself > > > > > > > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route > > > which in the FIB. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > > > > > > > > > > > The only way to fully address all of the instances of > > > this sort of > > > > > > objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP > > > implementations allow the > > > > > > user to do things that violate the protocol > > > specification in minor > > > > > > ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes > > > with questionalble > > > > > > uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although > > > this statement > > > > > > is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. > > > > > > > > > > > This although is sometimes true, is bordering on being > > > rediculous for a > > > > > spec. I agree, you do not want to add this or the reader > > > will stop reading > > > > > the spec. > > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA29556 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id C27FD9137D; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 939999137E; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F049137D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 195AB5DEE1; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B747D5DED2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC125VB>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:05:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB3A@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: New Issue AS path Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:05:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk The other option here is to remover references to CONFEDs as "out of scope" and/or "refer to RFC3065" (although I am not sure if it is/will be sufficiently covered there). -----Original Message----- From: Srikanth Rao [mailto:srikanth@force10networks.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:50 PM To: curtis@fictitious.org; Natale, Jonathan Cc: Jeffrey Haas; idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: New Issue AS path > What about AS_CONFED_SETs? Does anybody use these? >>Don't think that's every used, but if so if AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE is not >>counted, it would apply to AS_CONFED_SET. Juniper counts AS_CONFED_SET towards path length of one. -sr- -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:35 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; curtis@fictitious.org; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: New Issue AS path In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB32@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > What about the fact that an AS_SET counts as 1 (in IOS)??? Is that > already in the spec? That's in 9.1.2.2: a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. > Does juniper set AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE to 0 too? I'd say yes but don't know for sure. > What about AS_CONFED_SETs? Does anybody use these? Don't think that's every used, but if so if AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE is not counted, it would apply to AS_CONFED_SET. > I don't think we want to put stuff in [to the draft] just because IOS > does it; it might be nice to put stuff in that covers Juniper and IOS, > if and only if it affect interoperability. It looks like it is already covered in draft-17. See above. Curtis > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:28 PM > To: curtis@fictitious.org > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. > > That would be my preferred action. > > However, I would also prefer that the AS_PATH length calculation for > confederation segments (i.e. they have zero value) also be moved into > the confed update. > > > Curtis > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA28475 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7260C9137B; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3D5C09137C; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10CE9137B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C46FB5DEE1; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E6B5DEAC for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC125RL>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:43:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB38@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: New Issue AS path Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:43:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I hate to drag "specific vendors" in, but does Juniper also count AS_CONFED_SET as 1? If they do, then the section below should be changed (it now says to count it as 0), right? Also, what to do with AS_CONFED_SET should be spec'd. -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:35 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; curtis@fictitious.org; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: New Issue AS path In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB32@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > What about the fact that an AS_SET counts as 1 (in IOS)??? Is that > already in the spec? That's in 9.1.2.2: a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. > Does juniper set AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE to 0 too? I'd say yes but don't know for sure. > What about AS_CONFED_SETs? Does anybody use these? Don't think that's every used, but if so if AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE is not counted, it would apply to AS_CONFED_SET. > I don't think we want to put stuff in [to the draft] just because IOS > does it; it might be nice to put stuff in that covers Juniper and IOS, > if and only if it affect interoperability. It looks like it is already covered in draft-17. See above. Curtis > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:28 PM > To: curtis@fictitious.org > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. > > That would be my preferred action. > > However, I would also prefer that the AS_PATH length calculation for > confederation segments (i.e. they have zero value) also be moved into > the confed update. > > > Curtis > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA28199 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8A69B91218; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 584D79137A; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2169591218 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id F0EBD5DEDF; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A270E5DEDD for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC125QY>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:36:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB37@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: MED for Originated Routes Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:36:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk The point is: "the base spec does not say what to set the MED to for originated routes" ...the fact that Juniper and Cisco chose sensible things to do is not an argument for the spec to be silent, is it? Also, didn't the old spec say to treat a missing MED as all 1's? (not sure if this is relevant) -----Original Message----- From: Mathew Richardson [mailto:mrr@nexthop.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:59 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: 'John G. Scudder'; 'curtis@fictitious.org'; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes > Natale, Jonathan <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> [Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at >05:30:11PM -0400]: Since no MED is equivalent to MED = 0 *in this >case*, they are interoperable. But the base spec does not say what to >set the MED to for originated routes. So I need to disagree, an >addition to the spec is called for. <snip> The absence of an MED is equivalent to a MED of zero in all cases. mrr Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA15941 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4671291370; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1131B91371; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C156191370 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A7E505DE55; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mail.alcatel.be (alc250.alcatel.be [195.207.101.250]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073925DDCE for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (relay3 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alcatel.be (8.11.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g948mIG13928; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:48:18 +0200 Received: from alcatel.be ([138.203.142.50]) by Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002100410544471:2849 ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:54:44 +0200 Message-ID: <3D9D5734.8B38A91D@alcatel.be> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:54:12 +0200 From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: Active Route - OT References: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F25@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/04/2002 10:54:45, Serialize by Router on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/04/2002 10:54:46, Serialize complete at 10/04/2002 10:54:46 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Ben, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" wrote: > Hans: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > [mailto:hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be] > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:09 AM > > To: BGP mailing list > > Subject: Re: Active Route - OT > > > > > > All, > > > > thanks for your feedback on this. Now I tend to be more in > > favor of leaving > > the text and the restriction in the RFC. The reasons i see > > for this are: > > > > 1. The effective use of policy is endangered. Supose a bgp > > speaker announces to > > its external peer reachability for a route, and indicates > > that this route > > passes through AS 1,2 and 3, while at the same time the FIB > > of the same router > > would actually send the traffic so that in the end it follows > > another path > > passing through a different set of ASses. If this is allowed > > why would we even > > bother to pass along attributes? (Also I learned of some > > people trying to make > > tools that use the BGP RIB to figure out how traffic is flowing in the > > internet). > > > > According to Dennis you are gauranteed that the mix of BGP and IGP routing > will prevent any possible loops and get the packet to its destination. It > does not gaurantee that the packet will travel the AS_PATH defined in the > (i/e)BGP route. Thus, in a way it works and it doesn't, if you are picky > about the attributes. Well, I tend to be picky on the attributes. Why do we forward them, or have long discussions about then (as the ones I see ongoing for e.g. the AS-PATH) if in the end the attribute is not trustworthy? What is e.g. the value of a routing policy saying that "I do not want to use routes that to pass via this particular AS". Unless of course, my whole appreciation of the atributes is wrong. But in this case it would be good to indicate what can and cannot be expected from an attribute. > IMHO, there should be a way to flag that suboptimal > routing is > taking place with this route so that any external peers can make a judgement > call on the validity of the route provided. For example, lets say a peer > knows that this IBGP route is not really used for forwarding but an IGP > route > is for the same destination, it could flag the route with a new attribute > saying that suboptimal routing path is used with this route. The external > peer receiving the route can reduce its priority so that the BGP decision > process can pick another route over this one, thus avoiding the less > deterministic behavior. > I am not sure that the other route which is used is in fact 'suboptimal'. The only thing i really know is that the attributes for the actual route that is being taken, will differ from the advertised attributes. So we would probaby end up with an indicator in the route saying " attributes not guaranteed", but then again i think i prefer the restriction in the RFC. > > Your comment? > > Ben > > > > thanks > > --- > > Hans De Vleeschouwer > > > > > "Natale, Jonathan" wrote: > > > > > > > "What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out?" > > > > > > > > Then you are mis-configured. > > > > > > > > Also, I agree with Curtis--redistributing BGP into IGP is > > a bad idea. A > > > > much better idea is to turn off synchronization (rumor > > was that it will > > > > be/is off by default in newer IOS). Juniper does not > > even have a synch > > > > concept (a good thing). > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Abarbanel, Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:41 PM > > > > To: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > > Subject: RE: Active Route > > > > > > > > Curtis > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM > > > > > To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > > > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, > > > > > hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ > > > > > es: > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same > > > > > time I forward > > > > > > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS > > > > > border routers (bu > > > > > > t > > > > > > to no other routers). > > > > > > > > > > This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop > > needs to be in > > > > > the IGP. > > > > > > > > > > > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router > > > > > (router B) to pass thos > > > > > > e > > > > > > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS > > > > > via an EBGP connecti > > > > > > on. > > > > > > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) > > > > > > > > > > Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable > > via the IGP > > > > > *not* the BGP prefix itself. > > > > > > > > > > There is never a need to put the destination prefix > > into the IGP if it > > > > > is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are > > originating a > > > > > prefix and you want it to go out with specific > > attributes such as > > > > > specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP > > communities some > > > > > special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > > > > > > > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP > > only) routers is by > > > > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > > > > > > > > > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B > > > > > will forward routes > > > > > > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for > > > > > those routes the > > > > > > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has > > > > > typically a higher > > > > > > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > > > > > > > > > > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a > > > > > BGP speaker > > > > > > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those > > > > > routes that it itself > > > > > > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route > > which in the FIB. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > > > > > > > > > The only way to fully address all of the instances of > > this sort of > > > > > objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP > > implementations allow the > > > > > user to do things that violate the protocol > > specification in minor > > > > > ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes > > with questionalble > > > > > uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although > > this statement > > > > > is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. > > > > > > > > > This although is sometimes true, is bordering on being > > rediculous for a > > > > spec. I agree, you do not want to add this or the reader > > will stop reading > > > > the spec. > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA12397 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 87C7591245; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5975691370; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AB691245 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0229C5DEAF; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ganesh.ctd.hctech.com (unknown [202.54.64.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B165DE55 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by GANESH with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4F5VZGW3>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:41:34 +0530 Message-ID: <55E277B99171E041ABF5F4B1C6DDCA069C8FAA@haritha.hclt.com> From: "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <venug@ctd.hcltech.com> To: "'idr@merit.edu'" <idr@merit.edu> Subject: issue 25 Next-hop Semantics. Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:21:18 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi , I think we should define semantic correctness for I-BGP and E-BGP (with multiple hops away from the speaker) peer also apart from the E-BGP connection with one-hop away from each other. The current rfc text describes "Semantic correctness applies only to the external BGP links, and only when the sender and the receiving speaker are one IP hop away from each other. To be semantically correct, the IP address in the NEXT_HOP must not be the IP address of the receiving speaker, and the NEXT_HOP IP address must either be the sender's IP address (used to establish the BGP session), or the interface associated with the NEXT_HOP IP address must share a common subnet with the receiving BGP speaker. " As a first reader, this text gives understanding that, I-BGP and E-BGP (with many hops away) peers MAY receive a Route with NEXT-HOP attribute as "receivinging speaker's IP address", which is actully not true for all types BNP peers( I-BGP and E-BGP). Thanks &Regards Venu G. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16950 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9C6289136B; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5F3E89136C; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC169136B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E23F55DE4C; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from web12806.mail.yahoo.com (web12806.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.41]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 6007D5DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20021003231140.79335.qmail@web12806.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.246.215.128] by web12806.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 16:11:40 PDT Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:11:40 -0700 (PDT) From: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: issue 11 To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB2F@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-491911259-1033686700=:78135" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --0-491911259-1033686700=:78135 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Natale, Jonathan" wrote: I don't think it should be mentioned in the base spec. why not? Most "major" vendors have extended their decision process (beyond router id check) to include 1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present in path attribute) 2) cluster list length 3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command) Then why should others have to go to vendors sites and figure out what they have to do to be in compliance with common practice? Isnt that what the spec is for? -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:22 PM To: vrishab sikand Cc: Jeffrey Haas; Alex Zinin; Yakov Rekhter; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In message <20021003181755.75046.qmail@web12808.mail.yahoo.com>, vrishab sikand writes: > > --- Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:20:34AM -0700, Alex Zinin > > wrote: > > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the > > best path selection > > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it > > didn't really describe > > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > > > Cisco has cluster length as part of their > > tie-breaker. > > > > I'm curious about the scenario that is trying to be addressed by > > this. > > > hierarchical route reflector configurations. i.e. > levels of RR clusters. > Routes which have come through a no RR are prefferred > over routes which come over one level of RR, are > preffered over 2 two levels etc. > At least one of the biggest ISP's uses RR's in this > way. > > > Alex > > > > -- > > Jeff Haas > > NextHop Technologies It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. It could be mentioned in the base spec. I defer to Yakov, Sue, Alex, and Bill for that decision. Curtis --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! --0-491911259-1033686700=:78135 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <P> <P> <B><I>"Natale, Jonathan" <JNATALE@CELOXNETWORKS.COM></I></B>wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <P>I don't think it should be mentioned in the base spec.<BR></P> <P>why not?</P> <P>Most "major" vendors have extended their decision process (beyond router id check) to include</P> <P>1) originator ID (to be substituited for router id, when present in path attribute)</P> <P>2) cluster list length</P> <P>3) peer id (configured ip address of peer in the neighbor command)</P> <P>Then why should others have to go to vendors sites and figure out what they have to do to be in compliance with common practice?</P> <P>Isnt that what the spec is for?</P> <P><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] <BR>Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:22 PM<BR>To: vrishab sikand<BR>Cc: Jeffrey Haas; Alex Zinin; Yakov Rekhter; idr@merit.edu<BR>Subject: Re: issue 11 <BR><BR><BR><BR>In message <20021003181755.75046.qmail@web12808.mail.yahoo.com>, vrishab<BR>sikand<BR>writes:<BR>> <BR>> --- Jeffrey Haas <JHAAS@NEXTHOP.COM>wrote:<BR>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:20:34AM -0700, Alex Zinin<BR>> > wrote:<BR>> > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the<BR>> > best path selection<BR>> > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it<BR>> > didn't really describe<BR>> > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case?<BR>> > <BR>> > Cisco has cluster length as part of their<BR>> > tie-breaker.<BR>> > <BR>> > I'm curious about the scenario that is trying to be addressed by <BR>> > this.<BR>> > <BR>> hierarchical route reflector configurations. i.e.<BR>> levels of RR clusters.<BR>> Routes which have come through a no RR are prefferred<BR>> over routes which come over one level of RR, are<BR>> preffered over 2 two levels etc.<BR>> At least one of the biggest ISP's uses RR's in this<BR>> way.<BR>> > > Alex<BR>> > <BR>> > --<BR>> > Jeff Haas <BR>> > NextHop Technologies<BR><BR><BR>It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC.<BR><BR>It could be mentioned in the base spec. I defer to Yakov, Sue, Alex,<BR>and Bill for that decision.<BR><BR>Curtis</P></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> New <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://sbc.yahoo.com/">DSL Internet Access</a> from SBC & Yahoo!</a> --0-491911259-1033686700=:78135-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA16286 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id EC7E391376; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B9C6391375; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4EE9136C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 505B35DE3A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC425DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA73877; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:57:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210032257.SAA73877@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, "'John G. Scudder'" <jgs@cisco.com>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:49:00 EDT." <200210032249.SAA73680@workhorse.fictitious.org> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:57:33 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I just reread this and I wasn't clear about what I was saying. If one router does something unusual like puts in MED=10 by default it would still interoperate fine with other routers. It might surprise someone if it replaced another router that didn't do that. There is no NEED to specify what to put into MED, just how to handle MED (including whatever MED the router does put in) so that routing decisions are consistent. Repeating my last two paragraphs.. Although there is no NEED for this, some people might find it desirable to suggest a default behavior. If we want to put something in, I suggested a brief outline of what implementations do, noting that although I thought the text was correct, there was no NEED to add any of it. We now have one variation from that which we can reflect in any text we add, if we add any. First we have to come to agreement on whether we need to add anything at all. I hope that made more sense. Curtis In message <200210032249.SAA73680@workhorse.fictitious.org>, Curtis Villamizar writes: > > In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB35@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetw > or > ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > Since no MED is equivalent to MED = 0 *in this case*, they are > > interoperable. But the base spec does not say what to set the > > MED to for originated routes. So I need to disagree, an > > addition to the spec is called for. > > > The two implementations don't do exactly the same thing. They do > interoperate. Someone owning some of each may want to know what will > be sent out by each router. > > There is no need at all for the protocol spec to mandate what should > be sent out or document what various implementations do in this case. > The decisions made by routers in a BGP network of any configuration > will be self-consistent regardless of which behavior is used. Routing > decisions will differ slightly if one router is replaced with the > other, but again will be consistent across the network. > > Although there is no NEED for this, some people might find it > desirable to suggest a default behavior. If we want to put something > in, I suggested a brief outline of what implementations do, noting > that although I thought the text was correct, there was no NEED to add > any of it. We now have one variation from that which we can reflect > in any text we add, if we add any. > > First we have to come to agreement on whether we need to add anything > at all. > > Curtis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John G. Scudder [mailto:jgs@cisco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:07 PM > > To: Natale, Jonathan > > Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; Natale, Jonathan; idr@merit.edu > > Subject: RE: MED for Originated Routes > > > > > > At 4:55 PM -0400 10/3/02, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > > >Juniper sends no MED for originated routes to IBGP, Cisco sends MED = 0 > > >for originated routes to IBGP. So maybe this needs to be clarified in > > >the Base spec. > > > > The two behaviors are interoperable. I don't think any change to the > > specification is called for. > > > > --John > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA15892 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 42C7091365; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0BBB091369; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37BD91365 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 95FE75DE3A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51185DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA73680; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:49:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210032249.SAA73680@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'John G. Scudder'" <jgs@cisco.com>, "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 17:30:11 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB35@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:49:00 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB35@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > Since no MED is equivalent to MED = 0 *in this case*, they are > interoperable. But the base spec does not say what to set the > MED to for originated routes. So I need to disagree, an > addition to the spec is called for. The two implementations don't do exactly the same thing. They do interoperate. Someone owning some of each may want to know what will be sent out by each router. There is no need at all for the protocol spec to mandate what should be sent out or document what various implementations do in this case. The decisions made by routers in a BGP network of any configuration will be self-consistent regardless of which behavior is used. Routing decisions will differ slightly if one router is replaced with the other, but again will be consistent across the network. Although there is no NEED for this, some people might find it desirable to suggest a default behavior. If we want to put something in, I suggested a brief outline of what implementations do, noting that although I thought the text was correct, there was no NEED to add any of it. We now have one variation from that which we can reflect in any text we add, if we add any. First we have to come to agreement on whether we need to add anything at all. Curtis > -----Original Message----- > From: John G. Scudder [mailto:jgs@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:07 PM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; Natale, Jonathan; idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: MED for Originated Routes > > > At 4:55 PM -0400 10/3/02, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > >Juniper sends no MED for originated routes to IBGP, Cisco sends MED = 0 > >for originated routes to IBGP. So maybe this needs to be clarified in > >the Base spec. > > The two behaviors are interoperable. I don't think any change to the > specification is called for. > > --John Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA15270 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 42FC19136E; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D3A0C9136B; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B299136A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C0CD35DE48; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20925DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA73622; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:35:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210032235.SAA73622@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, curtis@fictitious.org, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: New Issue AS path In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 17:06:59 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB32@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:35:18 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB32@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > What about the fact that an AS_SET counts as 1 (in IOS)??? Is that already > in the spec? That's in 9.1.2.2: a) Remove from consideration all routes which are not tied for having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their AS_PATH attributes. Note, that when counting this number, an AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASs are in the set, and that, if the implementation supports [13], then AS numbers present in segments of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET are not included in the count of AS numbers present in the AS_PATH. > Does juniper set AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE to 0 too? I'd say yes but don't know for sure. > What about AS_CONFED_SETs? Does anybody use these? Don't think that's every used, but if so if AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE is not counted, it would apply to AS_CONFED_SET. > I don't think we want to put stuff in [to the draft] just because IOS does > it; it might be nice to put stuff in that covers Juniper and IOS, if and > only if it affect interoperability. It looks like it is already covered in draft-17. See above. Curtis > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:28 PM > To: curtis@fictitious.org > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. > > That would be my preferred action. > > However, I would also prefer that the AS_PATH length calculation for > confederation segments (i.e. they have zero value) also be moved into the > confed update. > > > Curtis > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA13496 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5A0C99135F; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 333BE91360; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8384A9135F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 66D915DE48; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FCF5DE39 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g93Lxcr60977; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: from paradigm.nexthop.com (mrichardson.nexthop.com [64.211.218.45]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g93LxWC60965; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: (from mrr@localhost) by paradigm.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g93LxWM16745; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:32 -0400 From: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: New Issue AS path Message-ID: <20021003215932.GD8900@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB36@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB36@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Natale, Jonathan <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> [Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:31:59PM -0400]: >So what about AS_CONFED_SETs? Are they 1 or 0? <since> No confederation segments count towards the path length. mrr Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA13451 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5FDBE9135E; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 28CEC9135F; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0059135E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D1AAD5DE48; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3E75DE39 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:59:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g93LwYE60940; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:58:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: from paradigm.nexthop.com (mrichardson.nexthop.com [64.211.218.45]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g93LwVC60932; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:58:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: (from mrr@localhost) by paradigm.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g93LwVs16739; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:58:31 -0400 From: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'John G. Scudder'" <jgs@cisco.com>, "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes Message-ID: <20021003215831.GC8900@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB35@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB35@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Natale, Jonathan <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> [Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:30:11PM -0400]: >Since no MED is equivalent to MED = 0 *in this case*, they are >interoperable. But the base spec does not say what to set the >MED to for originated routes. So I need to disagree, an >addition to the spec is called for. <snip> The absence of an MED is equivalent to a MED of zero in all cases. mrr Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA12417 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:36:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2B00391373; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:35:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6682D9136C; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117CE9135C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id EB7BA5DE4A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2315DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12X7J>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:31:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB36@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: New Issue AS path Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:31:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk So what about AS_CONFED_SETs? Are they 1 or 0? -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:21 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: New Issue AS path On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:06:59PM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > What about the fact that an AS_SET counts as 1 (in IOS)??? Is that > already in the spec? That got moved into the spec. It even makes sense, even it means aggregates that aggregate as_paths may have shorter paths than their contributing routes. > What about AS_CONFED_SETs? Does anybody use these? GateD supports these. > I don't think we want to put stuff in [to the draft] just because IOS > does it; it might be nice to put stuff in that covers Juniper and IOS, > if and only if it affect interoperability. Things that affect route selection affect everyone. Its best to be consistant. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA12153 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:31:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 188FA9135D; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7CDBB9135E; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762B49135D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 84AE25DE4A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:30:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D998F5DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:30:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12X7B>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:30:12 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB35@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'John G. Scudder'" <jgs@cisco.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: MED for Originated Routes Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:30:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Since no MED is equivalent to MED = 0 *in this case*, they are interoperable. But the base spec does not say what to set the MED to for originated routes. So I need to disagree, an addition to the spec is called for. -----Original Message----- From: John G. Scudder [mailto:jgs@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:07 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; Natale, Jonathan; idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: MED for Originated Routes At 4:55 PM -0400 10/3/02, Natale, Jonathan wrote: >Juniper sends no MED for originated routes to IBGP, Cisco sends MED = 0 >for originated routes to IBGP. So maybe this needs to be clarified in >the Base spec. The two behaviors are interoperable. I don't think any change to the specification is called for. --John Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA11732 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5227F91359; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1751B9135A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F3B91359 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 92FCC5DE0A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD82B5DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g93LLDF59833; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g93LL9C59826; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g93LL9K02743; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:21:09 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: New Issue AS path Message-ID: <20021003172109.D25413@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB32@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB32@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>; from JNatale@celoxnetworks.com on Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:06:59PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:06:59PM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > What about the fact that an AS_SET counts as 1 (in IOS)??? Is that already > in the spec? That got moved into the spec. It even makes sense, even it means aggregates that aggregate as_paths may have shorter paths than their contributing routes. > What about AS_CONFED_SETs? Does anybody use these? GateD supports these. > I don't think we want to put stuff in [to the draft] just because IOS does > it; it might be nice to put stuff in that covers Juniper and IOS, if and > only if it affect interoperability. Things that affect route selection affect everyone. Its best to be consistant. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA11054 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8044F91357; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3289E91354; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F43991351 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E3F035DE55; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from cisco.com (router.cisco.com [171.69.182.20]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271225DE0A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.42.10] (dhcp-171-69-182-161.cisco.com [171.69.182.161]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA26877; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jgs@router Message-Id: <p05111a3cb9c260e8d27a@[192.168.42.10]> In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB30@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com > References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB30@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com > Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:06:48 -0400 To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@cisco.com> Subject: RE: MED for Originated Routes Cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk At 4:55 PM -0400 10/3/02, Natale, Jonathan wrote: >Juniper sends no MED for originated routes to IBGP, Cisco sends MED = 0 for >originated routes to IBGP. So maybe this needs to be clarified in the Base >spec. The two behaviors are interoperable. I don't think any change to the specification is called for. --John Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA11030 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0F1289134D; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CC40991351; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BFB29134D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 71F285DE0A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0B25DE04 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12XZP>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:07:00 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB32@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: New Issue AS path Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:06:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk What about the fact that an AS_SET counts as 1 (in IOS)??? Is that already in the spec? Does juniper set AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE to 0 too? What about AS_CONFED_SETs? Does anybody use these? I don't think we want to put stuff in [to the draft] just because IOS does it; it might be nice to put stuff in that covers Juniper and IOS, if and only if it affect interoperability. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:28 PM To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. That would be my preferred action. However, I would also prefer that the AS_PATH length calculation for confederation segments (i.e. they have zero value) also be moved into the confed update. > Curtis -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA10892 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F205C9134F; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D7FE691353; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1A89134D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DD5295DE39; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164DE5DE04 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA72993; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:02:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210032102.RAA72993@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 16:55:19 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB30@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 17:02:17 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB30@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > I checked this. > > Juniper sends no MED for originated routes to IBGP, Cisco sends MED = 0 for > originated routes to IBGP. So maybe this needs to be clarified in the Base > spec. I don't see an interoperability problem with that. The question still stands - do we need to put anything about this in the base spec? Alex - your opinion? Curtis > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:46 PM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes > > > > In message > <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB26@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor > ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > > > What should the MED be for originated routes to IBGP? No Med? All > > 1's? Configurable? Is it in the draft? Is this a new issue? Do you > > want more questions? > > I didn't look this up in the draft yet, but the answer is: > > for IBGP: > > The MED you got from EBGP (if any) > > or configurable: > > strip off MED (if any) > or configure a MED > > originating to IBGP, use no MED or configure one. > > for EBGP (IBGP learned or originating): > > default to no MED > > or configurable: > > put IGP cost into MED > or configure a MED > > That in a nutshell is what implementations do (AFAIK). > > I don't think this level of detail needs to go into the protocol spec. But > I've been on the minority end of the consensus before so... first lets ask > if we need this level of detail. I think no. Others? > > Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA10760 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 772D89134E; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 31F8F9134F; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9C09134E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6AAC85DE4A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A4B5DE39 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12XYM>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:01:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB31@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:01:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, It may be better if we keep each thread to one Issue. -Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:28 PM To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. That would be my preferred action. However, I would also prefer that the AS_PATH length calculation for confederation segments (i.e. they have zero value) also be moved into the confed update. > Curtis -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA10410 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 148599134A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CF8DD9134D; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F4D9134A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4D9DA5DE39; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0882A5DE04 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12XXK>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:55:20 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB30@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: MED for Originated Routes Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:55:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I checked this. Juniper sends no MED for originated routes to IBGP, Cisco sends MED = 0 for originated routes to IBGP. So maybe this needs to be clarified in the Base spec. -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:46 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB26@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > What should the MED be for originated routes to IBGP? No Med? All > 1's? Configurable? Is it in the draft? Is this a new issue? Do you > want more questions? I didn't look this up in the draft yet, but the answer is: for IBGP: The MED you got from EBGP (if any) or configurable: strip off MED (if any) or configure a MED originating to IBGP, use no MED or configure one. for EBGP (IBGP learned or originating): default to no MED or configurable: put IGP cost into MED or configure a MED That in a nutshell is what implementations do (AFAIK). I don't think this level of detail needs to go into the protocol spec. But I've been on the minority end of the consensus before so... first lets ask if we need this level of detail. I think no. Others? Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA10255 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2382791330; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E2BC99134A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8607D91330 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5A54A5DE04; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F835DDA1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12XW6>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB2F@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I don't think it should be mentioned in the base spec. -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:22 PM To: vrishab sikand Cc: Jeffrey Haas; Alex Zinin; Yakov Rekhter; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In message <20021003181755.75046.qmail@web12808.mail.yahoo.com>, vrishab sikand writes: > > --- Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:20:34AM -0700, Alex Zinin > > wrote: > > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the > > best path selection > > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it > > didn't really describe > > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > > > Cisco has cluster length as part of their > > tie-breaker. > > > > I'm curious about the scenario that is trying to be addressed by > > this. > > > hierarchical route reflector configurations. i.e. > levels of RR clusters. > Routes which have come through a no RR are prefferred > over routes which come over one level of RR, are > preffered over 2 two levels etc. > At least one of the biggest ISP's uses RR's in this > way. > > > Alex > > > > -- > > Jeff Haas > > NextHop Technologies It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. It could be mentioned in the base spec. I defer to Yakov, Sue, Alex, and Bill for that decision. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06233 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8786E91345; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5AD8091344; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02CA91343 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B4D155DE35; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DF95DE27 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g93JS5u56414; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g93JS1C56407; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g93JS1800507; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:01 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 Message-ID: <20021003152801.C25413@nexthop.com> References: <20021003181755.75046.qmail@web12808.mail.yahoo.com> <200210031922.PAA72247@workhorse.fictitious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210031922.PAA72247@workhorse.fictitious.org>; from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org on Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. That would be my preferred action. However, I would also prefer that the AS_PATH length calculation for confederation segments (i.e. they have zero value) also be moved into the confed update. > Curtis -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05967 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E0C0191341; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AFD8F91342; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553A491341 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 36A835DE3B; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551C35DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:22:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA72247; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:22:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210031922.PAA72247@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 11 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:17:55 PDT." <20021003181755.75046.qmail@web12808.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 15:22:02 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <20021003181755.75046.qmail@web12808.mail.yahoo.com>, vrishab sikand writes: > > --- Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:20:34AM -0700, Alex Zinin > > wrote: > > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the > > best path selection > > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it > > didn't really describe > > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > > > Cisco has cluster length as part of their > > tie-breaker. > > > > I'm curious about the scenario that is trying to be > > addressed by this. > > > hierarchical route reflector configurations. i.e. > levels of RR clusters. > Routes which have come through a no RR are prefferred > over routes which come over one level of RR, are > preffered over 2 two levels etc. > At least one of the biggest ISP's uses RR's in this > way. > > > Alex > > > > -- > > Jeff Haas > > NextHop Technologies It would be useful to add this to the RR RFC. It could be mentioned in the base spec. I defer to Yakov, Sue, Alex, and Bill for that decision. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03350 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 494569133B; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D1FDB9133A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BBD9133B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 346605DDE8; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01D05DDBF for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16981; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13614; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7Q5BX>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:03 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F28@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: "'Manav Bhatia'" <manav@samsung.com>, BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:31:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I am not advocating that people do this, just that the knob is there and we need to add a caution against it. Eventually the knob should be removed by sensible vendors. That is all, Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:27 PM > To: Abarbanel, Benjamin > Cc: 'Manav Bhatia'; curtis@fictitious.org; BGP mailing list > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > In message > <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F23@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>, > "Abarbanel, Benjamin" writes: > > The world is too big and complex and it is too difficult to > make one size > > fit all solution work. I guess that is why they have not > depracated the > > redistribution from BGP to IGP feature happen. IMHO, as > long as the main > > stream vendors still support the feature, we must consider > it as a viable > > configuration. To say your network is broken if you use it, > is a bit over > > stating it. I would rather we add cautionary comments in > the base spec for > > things like this that can lead into possible trouble. > > > > End of Commentary, > > Ben > > > Ben, > > If you've ever seen the results of injecting BGP into the IGP in an > ISP network you'd know that it isn't something you'd want to do again. > > The hacks for using BGP in an incomplete BGP mesh (to accommodate a > deficient router) should be out of scope for the protocol specs. > > I don't think its productive to continue this discussion so I won't > comment further. > > Curtis > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Manav Bhatia [mailto:manav@samsung.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:49 AM > > > To: curtis@fictitious.org; Abarbanel, Benjamin > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > | > > > > | > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > > | > > > > | > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP > > > only) routers > > > is by > > > | > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > > | > > > > > > [clipped] > > > > > > | The stance as far as the protocol spec goes is that BGP/IGP > > > | interactions are out of scope. Special cases to > support a broken AS > > > | (one with incomplete IBGP connectivity) is definitely > out of scope. > > > | > > > > > > What if i have one non BGP speaking router lying in > between the 2 BGP > > > speaking routers carrying transit traffic. I dont think its a > > > broken AS if > > > i have this kind of topology. Things will work in this case > > > by adding a > > > default route here on this transit non BGP speaking router. > > > But it can turn > > > really messy if the number of such transit non BGP > routers increase. > > > > > > | > > > | I did mention it with the intent to show that it borders on > > > ridiculous > > > | to try to accommodate all ways in which you can build a > semi-broken > > > | BGP network or build one with semi-broken equipment and > get it to > > > | actually work. We seem to agree that we don't want to > go down that > > > | road, either enumerating all of the cases or with the > > > general caveat. > > > > > > same comments as above. > > > > > > Manav > > > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03075 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:27:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5DB1691339; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 22B909133A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CCB91339 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 801EF5DDE6; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EEEA5DDBF for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA71955; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:26:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210031826.OAA71955@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: "'Manav Bhatia'" <manav@samsung.com>, curtis@fictitious.org, BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: Active Route In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 10:52:15 EDT." <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F23@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 14:26:33 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F23@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" writes: > The world is too big and complex and it is too difficult to make one size > fit all solution work. I guess that is why they have not depracated the > redistribution from BGP to IGP feature happen. IMHO, as long as the main > stream vendors still support the feature, we must consider it as a viable > configuration. To say your network is broken if you use it, is a bit over > stating it. I would rather we add cautionary comments in the base spec for > things like this that can lead into possible trouble. > > End of Commentary, > Ben Ben, If you've ever seen the results of injecting BGP into the IGP in an ISP network you'd know that it isn't something you'd want to do again. The hacks for using BGP in an incomplete BGP mesh (to accommodate a deficient router) should be out of scope for the protocol specs. I don't think its productive to continue this discussion so I won't comment further. Curtis > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Manav Bhatia [mailto:manav@samsung.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:49 AM > > To: curtis@fictitious.org; Abarbanel, Benjamin > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > > Curtis, > > | > > > | > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > | > > > | > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP > > only) routers > > is by > > | > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > | > > > > [clipped] > > > > | The stance as far as the protocol spec goes is that BGP/IGP > > | interactions are out of scope. Special cases to support a broken AS > > | (one with incomplete IBGP connectivity) is definitely out of scope. > > | > > > > What if i have one non BGP speaking router lying in between the 2 BGP > > speaking routers carrying transit traffic. I dont think its a > > broken AS if > > i have this kind of topology. Things will work in this case > > by adding a > > default route here on this transit non BGP speaking router. > > But it can turn > > really messy if the number of such transit non BGP routers increase. > > > > | > > | I did mention it with the intent to show that it borders on > > ridiculous > > | to try to accommodate all ways in which you can build a semi-broken > > | BGP network or build one with semi-broken equipment and get it to > > | actually work. We seem to agree that we don't want to go down that > > | road, either enumerating all of the cases or with the > > general caveat. > > > > same comments as above. > > > > Manav > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02660 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1DA6C91335; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DAE6B91337; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A1B91335 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DEEBE5DDE7; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from web12808.mail.yahoo.com (web12808.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.43]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F6B35DDE6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20021003181755.75046.qmail@web12808.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.246.215.128] by web12808.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:17:55 PDT Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:17:55 -0700 (PDT) From: vrishab sikand <v_sikand@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: issue 11 To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <20021003110530.B25413@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --- Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:20:34AM -0700, Alex Zinin > wrote: > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the > best path selection > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it > didn't really describe > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > Cisco has cluster length as part of their > tie-breaker. > > I'm curious about the scenario that is trying to be > addressed by this. > hierarchical route reflector configurations. i.e. levels of RR clusters. Routes which have come through a no RR are prefferred over routes which come over one level of RR, are preffered over 2 two levels etc. At least one of the biggest ISP's uses RR's in this way. > > Alex > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26212 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6721C91340; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2C77D9133C; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D300F91334 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C40765DDD7; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8095C5DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12WLS>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:04:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB2C@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issue 32.1 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:04:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, Here is an example of a confused person (see bellow). AGAIN, I propsed we CHANGE: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." (--current consensus(???), if I send the above to this person he may still be confused) TO: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." -or- "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker." Example Confused Person (sorry for making an example out of you, Mallika): -----Original Message----- From: mallika gautam [mailto:mallika_gautam@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:29 AM To: isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com Subject: [isp-bgp] Origin value as EGP Hi All, The origin attribute takes values as IGP, EGP or Incomplete. According to the text given on this topic, IGP is when the path information is originated within an AS. EGP, when it is learned from some other AS and Incomplete, when the information is learnt by other means. A very elementary qn. in this regards is whether the update coming from an EBGP peer have the origin field as EGP, if the sending AS comes to know about this path from some 3rd AS. ie. ASN 100 learns a path from ASN 200 and then ASN 100 sends it to ASN 300. Then will the path which ASN 300 finally receive from ASN 100 has the origin attribute as EGP. If this is not true then can anybody pl. suggest a scenerio when the route information will have EGP as the origin field value. Thanks Mallika (Note: This also disproves the contention that RFCs are for DE's [only]--they are also for CE's, SE's, QE's, FE's, etc... Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24654 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 76D219132B; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:34:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EF2209132C; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:33:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2909132B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2264E5DDD7; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3085DDBF for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05775; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09170; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7QQRK>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:33:32 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F25@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be'" <hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be>, BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: Active Route - OT Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:33:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hans: > -----Original Message----- > From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > [mailto:hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:09 AM > To: BGP mailing list > Subject: Re: Active Route - OT > > > All, > > thanks for your feedback on this. Now I tend to be more in > favor of leaving > the text and the restriction in the RFC. The reasons i see > for this are: > > 1. The effective use of policy is endangered. Supose a bgp > speaker announces to > its external peer reachability for a route, and indicates > that this route > passes through AS 1,2 and 3, while at the same time the FIB > of the same router > would actually send the traffic so that in the end it follows > another path > passing through a different set of ASses. If this is allowed > why would we even > bother to pass along attributes? (Also I learned of some > people trying to make > tools that use the BGP RIB to figure out how traffic is flowing in the > internet). > According to Dennis you are gauranteed that the mix of BGP and IGP routing will prevent any possible loops and get the packet to its destination. It does not gaurantee that the packet will travel the AS_PATH defined in the (i/e)BGP route. Thus, in a way it works and it doesn't, if you are picky about the attributes. IMHO, there should be a way to flag that suboptimal routing is taking place with this route so that any external peers can make a judgement call on the validity of the route provided. For example, lets say a peer knows that this IBGP route is not really used for forwarding but an IGP route is for the same destination, it could flag the route with a new attribute saying that suboptimal routing path is used with this route. The external peer receiving the route can reduce its priority so that the BGP decision process can pick another route over this one, thus avoiding the less deterministic behavior. Your comment? Ben > thanks > --- > Hans De Vleeschouwer > > > "Natale, Jonathan" wrote: > > > > > "What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out?" > > > > > > Then you are mis-configured. > > > > > > Also, I agree with Curtis--redistributing BGP into IGP is > a bad idea. A > > > much better idea is to turn off synchronization (rumor > was that it will > > > be/is off by default in newer IOS). Juniper does not > even have a synch > > > concept (a good thing). > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Abarbanel, Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:41 PM > > > To: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > Subject: RE: Active Route > > > > > > Curtis > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM > > > > To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, > > > > hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ > > > > es: > > > > > > > > > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same > > > > time I forward > > > > > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS > > > > border routers (bu > > > > > t > > > > > to no other routers). > > > > > > > > This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop > needs to be in > > > > the IGP. > > > > > > > > > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router > > > > (router B) to pass thos > > > > > e > > > > > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS > > > > via an EBGP connecti > > > > > on. > > > > > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) > > > > > > > > Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable > via the IGP > > > > *not* the BGP prefix itself. > > > > > > > > There is never a need to put the destination prefix > into the IGP if it > > > > is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are > originating a > > > > prefix and you want it to go out with specific > attributes such as > > > > specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP > communities some > > > > special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > > > > > > > > > > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > > > > > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP > only) routers is by > > > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > > > > > > > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B > > > > will forward routes > > > > > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for > > > > those routes the > > > > > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has > > > > typically a higher > > > > > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > > > > > > > > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a > > > > BGP speaker > > > > > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those > > > > routes that it itself > > > > > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route > which in the FIB. > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > > > > > > > The only way to fully address all of the instances of > this sort of > > > > objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP > implementations allow the > > > > user to do things that violate the protocol > specification in minor > > > > ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes > with questionalble > > > > uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although > this statement > > > > is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. > > > > > > > This although is sometimes true, is bordering on being > rediculous for a > > > spec. I agree, you do not want to add this or the reader > will stop reading > > > the spec. > > > > > > Ben > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23180 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DBC4391328; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A6EA091329; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B971791328 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A049B5DDBC; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9ED15DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g93F5X347784; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g93F5UC47777; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g93F5Ub25736; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:30 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 Message-ID: <20021003110530.B25413@nexthop.com> References: <200209272152.g8RLqZm66954@merlot.juniper.net> <138175081333.20020930112034@psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <138175081333.20020930112034@psg.com>; from zinin@psg.com on Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:20:34AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:20:34AM -0700, Alex Zinin wrote: > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? Cisco has cluster length as part of their tie-breaker. I'm curious about the scenario that is trying to be addressed by this. > Alex -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22589 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6816791321; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2D1B091326; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E2491321 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7E9C05DD9E; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0069D5DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02734; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29263; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7QNTQ>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:14 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F23@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Manav Bhatia'" <manav@samsung.com>, curtis@fictitious.org, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:52:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk The world is too big and complex and it is too difficult to make one size fit all solution work. I guess that is why they have not depracated the redistribution from BGP to IGP feature happen. IMHO, as long as the main stream vendors still support the feature, we must consider it as a viable configuration. To say your network is broken if you use it, is a bit over stating it. I would rather we add cautionary comments in the base spec for things like this that can lead into possible trouble. End of Commentary, Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Manav Bhatia [mailto:manav@samsung.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:49 AM > To: curtis@fictitious.org; Abarbanel, Benjamin > Cc: BGP mailing list > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > Curtis, > | > > | > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > | > > | > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP > only) routers > is by > | > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > | > > [clipped] > > | The stance as far as the protocol spec goes is that BGP/IGP > | interactions are out of scope. Special cases to support a broken AS > | (one with incomplete IBGP connectivity) is definitely out of scope. > | > > What if i have one non BGP speaking router lying in between the 2 BGP > speaking routers carrying transit traffic. I dont think its a > broken AS if > i have this kind of topology. Things will work in this case > by adding a > default route here on this transit non BGP speaking router. > But it can turn > really messy if the number of such transit non BGP routers increase. > > | > | I did mention it with the intent to show that it borders on > ridiculous > | to try to accommodate all ways in which you can build a semi-broken > | BGP network or build one with semi-broken equipment and get it to > | actually work. We seem to agree that we don't want to go down that > | road, either enumerating all of the cases or with the > general caveat. > > same comments as above. > > Manav > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22268 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8382F91325; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3C76391321; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1945A91325 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:46:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E0AFA5DDA2; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FEE5DD9E for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA71213; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:45:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210031445.KAA71213@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: Active Route In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 09:59:39 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EB97@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 10:45:28 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EB97@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Gray, Eric" writes: > Curtis, > > Nice, useful advice. Thanks. :-) You could also do the "BGP free core" thingie using MPLS/TE in the core and LSPs that go among edge routers with full BGP information. That assumes that the reouter in the middle is MPLS/TE capable. :-) [Aside: Sorry for the terse response. I thought we sufficiently beat up the last clueless router vendor attempting to put a router in Internet cores in about 1995 when we finally got Wellfleet to do BGP (unfortunately they finished BGP3 in 1994 just after BGP4 was deployed worldwide). As Bay they finally got a BGP4 in 1995 (with horribly inefficient BGP policy code that made it near unusable but at least they had finally done BGP4).] In case its not glaringly obvious. For a router to play in the core of a ISP network it MUST be capable of doing BGP4. You can build toy networks (or real enterprise networks) with non-BGP routers. You can also build a BGP free core using MPLS/TE, but all MPLS/TE routers I'm aware of are also BGP4 capable. It is very hard for an ISP to use a non-BGP4 capable router in any capacity. As I mentioned earlier, you can use it near or at the edge by front ending it with a BGP capable router and get away with default (ie: multiple defaults if you need a secondary route). If we're going to reflect reality, we might as well reflect the practical reality that non-BGP rotuers have no proper place in networks that run BGP. Given a few hacks they can be accommodated in limited roles. For networks with very few BGP routes (toy or enterprise, not saying that these are the same) you have a few more options because you can get away with putting BGP into the IGP. These are hacks to accommodate deficient routers. I don't feel they have a place in the spec. Curtis > =============================================================== > > Manav, > > If you follow this advice, make sure you tell your > management that you threw out a possibly useful router > based on advice from the mailing list. The problem with > doing what you suggest is that you cannot use default > routes to route traffic transiting an AS. Because almost > nobody ever implemented behavior defined for interactions > between BGP and any IGP, and the RFCs where these behaviors > were defined have been re-classified as HISTORIC, it is not > even possible to use an IGP to route traffic transiting an > AS. > > Hence, the only way to route transit traffic in an > AS is using (i)BGP. But keep the router; you can use it > for internal routing, in an non-transit AS or as a nifty > paper-weight or boat anchor. :-) > > Eric W. Gray > Systems Architect > Celox Networks, Inc. > egray@celoxnetworks.com > 508 305 7214 You could always try to unload it on EBay. :-) Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19934 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:02:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F20C291320; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C35AE9131E; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFDA9131D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 673835DD91; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A015DD90 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12VYJ>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:59:40 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EB97@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:59:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, Nice, useful advice. =============================================================== Manav, If you follow this advice, make sure you tell your management that you threw out a possibly useful router based on advice from the mailing list. The problem with doing what you suggest is that you cannot use default routes to route traffic transiting an AS. Because almost nobody ever implemented behavior defined for interactions between BGP and any IGP, and the RFCs where these behaviors were defined have been re-classified as HISTORIC, it is not even possible to use an IGP to route traffic transiting an AS. Hence, the only way to route transit traffic in an AS is using (i)BGP. But keep the router; you can use it for internal routing, in an non-transit AS or as a nifty paper-weight or boat anchor. :-) Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. egray@celoxnetworks.com 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:34 AM > To: Manav Bhatia > Cc: curtis@fictitious.org; Abarbanel, Benjamin; BGP mailing list > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > In message <0a9101c26aca$84ce3600$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com>, Manav Bhatia > writes > : > > Curtis, > > | > > > | > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > | > > > | > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP only) > routers > > is by > > | > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > | > > > > [clipped] > > > > | The stance as far as the protocol spec goes is that BGP/IGP > > | interactions are out of scope. Special cases to support a broken AS > > | (one with incomplete IBGP connectivity) is definitely out of scope. > > | > > > > What if i have one non BGP speaking router lying in between the 2 BGP > > speaking routers carrying transit traffic. I dont think its a broken AS > if > > i have this kind of topology. Things will work in this case by adding a > > default route here on this transit non BGP speaking router. But it can > turn > > really messy if the number of such transit non BGP routers increase. > > > Put in a requisition to replace that router and go find a dumpster. > > > > | I did mention it with the intent to show that it borders on ridiculous > > | to try to accommodate all ways in which you can build a semi-broken > > | BGP network or build one with semi-broken equipment and get it to > > | actually work. We seem to agree that we don't want to go down that > > | road, either enumerating all of the cases or with the general caveat. > > > > same comments as above. > > > > Manav > > > Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18592 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CF0CD9131B; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A248E9131C; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292219131B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0422F5DE92; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485205DE8A for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA70824; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:33:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210031333.JAA70824@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Cc: curtis@fictitious.org, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>, BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: Active Route In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 16:19:09 +0530." <0a9101c26aca$84ce3600$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 09:33:49 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <0a9101c26aca$84ce3600$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com>, Manav Bhatia writes : > Curtis, > | > > | > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > | > > | > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP only) routers > is by > | > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > | > > [clipped] > > | The stance as far as the protocol spec goes is that BGP/IGP > | interactions are out of scope. Special cases to support a broken AS > | (one with incomplete IBGP connectivity) is definitely out of scope. > | > > What if i have one non BGP speaking router lying in between the 2 BGP > speaking routers carrying transit traffic. I dont think its a broken AS if > i have this kind of topology. Things will work in this case by adding a > default route here on this transit non BGP speaking router. But it can turn > really messy if the number of such transit non BGP routers increase. Put in a requisition to replace that router and go find a dumpster. > | I did mention it with the intent to show that it borders on ridiculous > | to try to accommodate all ways in which you can build a semi-broken > | BGP network or build one with semi-broken equipment and get it to > | actually work. We seem to agree that we don't want to go down that > | road, either enumerating all of the cases or with the general caveat. > > same comments as above. > > Manav Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17312 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D18A49131A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9C9FD9131B; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC779131A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C47B25DEED; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mail.alcatel.be (alc250.alcatel.be [195.207.101.250]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9315DEEC for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (relay3 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alcatel.be (8.11.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g93D2b523644 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:02:37 +0200 Received: from alcatel.be ([138.203.142.32]) by Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002100315090215:5447 ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:09:02 +0200 Message-ID: <3D9C4152.BE7F2A5A@alcatel.be> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 15:08:34 +0200 From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: Active Route - OT References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB12@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> <3D9C410D.7AA78323@alcatel.be> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/03/2002 15:09:02, Serialize by Router on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/03/2002 15:09:04, Serialize complete at 10/03/2002 15:09:04 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk All, thanks for your feedback on this. Now I tend to be more in favor of leaving the text and the restriction in the RFC. The reasons i see for this are: 1. The effective use of policy is endangered. Supose a bgp speaker announces to its external peer reachability for a route, and indicates that this route passes through AS 1,2 and 3, while at the same time the FIB of the same router would actually send the traffic so that in the end it follows another path passing through a different set of ASses. If this is allowed why would we even bother to pass along attributes? (Also I learned of some people trying to make tools that use the BGP RIB to figure out how traffic is flowing in the internet). 2. The restriction as it is stated does not really say HOW this restriction is to be met. E.g. in my (admittedly very bad) example if we are sure that the IGP will in the end guide the IP traffic through the AS in such a way that it is in line with the advertised BGP route, no harm is done. The same is valid for a static route. The most easy way to guarantee the restriction is to check that the route in the FIB is in fact the BGP-owned route being advertised, but this might not be the only possible way to guarantee this. thanks --- Hans De Vleeschouwer > "Natale, Jonathan" wrote: > > > "What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out?" > > > > Then you are mis-configured. > > > > Also, I agree with Curtis--redistributing BGP into IGP is a bad idea. A > > much better idea is to turn off synchronization (rumor was that it will > > be/is off by default in newer IOS). Juniper does not even have a synch > > concept (a good thing). > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Abarbanel, Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:41 PM > > To: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > Subject: RE: Active Route > > > > Curtis > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM > > > To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, > > > hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ > > > es: > > > > > > > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same > > > time I forward > > > > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS > > > border routers (bu > > > > t > > > > to no other routers). > > > > > > This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop needs to be in > > > the IGP. > > > > > > > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router > > > (router B) to pass thos > > > > e > > > > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS > > > via an EBGP connecti > > > > on. > > > > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) > > > > > > Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP > > > *not* the BGP prefix itself. > > > > > > There is never a need to put the destination prefix into the IGP if it > > > is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are originating a > > > prefix and you want it to go out with specific attributes such as > > > specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP communities some > > > special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > > > > > > > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > > > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP only) routers is by > > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > > > > > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B > > > will forward routes > > > > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for > > > those routes the > > > > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has > > > typically a higher > > > > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > > > > > > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a > > > BGP speaker > > > > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those > > > routes that it itself > > > > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route which in the FIB. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > > > > > The only way to fully address all of the instances of this sort of > > > objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP implementations allow the > > > user to do things that violate the protocol specification in minor > > > ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes with questionalble > > > uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although this statement > > > is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. > > > > > This although is sometimes true, is bordering on being rediculous for a > > spec. I agree, you do not want to add this or the reader will stop reading > > the spec. > > > > Ben > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA11421 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 06:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2A0F29123E; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 06:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id F008591314; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 06:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C9E9123E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 06:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 816B95DE6D; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 06:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from realname (unknown [203.254.224.24]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FF35DDEB for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 06:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from custom-daemon.mailout1.samsung.com by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) id <0H3E00M07JOISF@mailout1.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:55:30 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H3E00M0KJOHQZ@mailout1.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:55:30 +0900 (KST) Received: from Manav ([107.108.3.180]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with ESMTPA id <0H3E00D9OJP9GP@mmp2.samsung.com> for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:56:03 +0900 (KST) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 16:19:09 +0530 From: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Subject: Re: Active Route To: curtis@fictitious.org, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Reply-To: Manav Bhatia <manav@samsung.com> Message-id: <0a9101c26aca$84ce3600$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200210021944.PAA67025@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, | > | > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? | > | > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP only) routers is by | > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? | [clipped] | The stance as far as the protocol spec goes is that BGP/IGP | interactions are out of scope. Special cases to support a broken AS | (one with incomplete IBGP connectivity) is definitely out of scope. | What if i have one non BGP speaking router lying in between the 2 BGP speaking routers carrying transit traffic. I dont think its a broken AS if i have this kind of topology. Things will work in this case by adding a default route here on this transit non BGP speaking router. But it can turn really messy if the number of such transit non BGP routers increase. | | I did mention it with the intent to show that it borders on ridiculous | to try to accommodate all ways in which you can build a semi-broken | BGP network or build one with semi-broken equipment and get it to | actually work. We seem to agree that we don't want to go down that | road, either enumerating all of the cases or with the general caveat. same comments as above. Manav Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA07583 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 05:06:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1B62E9122A; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 05:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CF1E291234; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 05:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA2C9122A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 05:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5A64D5DE0C; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 05:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from aibo.runbox.com (aibo.runbox.com [193.71.199.94]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB0A5DDA4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 05:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.9.9.110] (helo=snoopy.runbox.com) by tramp.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.05-VA-mm1) id 17x1w3-0001E3-00 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:06:19 +0200 Received: from [203.200.20.226] (helo=Manav) (Authenticated Sender=dovek) by snoopy.runbox.com with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17x1vw-0004fs-00 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:06:12 +0200 Message-ID: <098201c26abc$001ea740$b4036c6b@sisodomain.com> From: "Misha Dovek" <dovek@runbox.com> To: <idr@merit.edu> Subject: BGP Marker field Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:35:12 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi, Is the marker field in all the BGP messages really required? Why cant it be deprecated? Are there any issues with that (except for interoperatability as of now!) ? Misha Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA25294 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5224291311; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:46:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1E69C91312; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:46:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C799691311 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B44B35DE0D; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAEB05DD9B for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA69596; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:45:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210030345.XAA69596@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: MED for Originated Routes In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:05:23 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB26@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 23:45:53 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB26@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > What should the MED be for originated routes to IBGP? No Med? All 1's? > Configurable? Is it in the draft? Is this a new issue? Do you want more > questions? I didn't look this up in the draft yet, but the answer is: for IBGP: The MED you got from EBGP (if any) or configurable: strip off MED (if any) or configure a MED originating to IBGP, use no MED or configure one. for EBGP (IBGP learned or originating): default to no MED or configurable: put IGP cost into MED or configure a MED That in a nutshell is what implementations do (AFAIK). I don't think this level of detail needs to go into the protocol spec. But I've been on the minority end of the consensus before so... first lets ask if we need this level of detail. I think no. Others? Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA15098 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B068891307; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:06:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7F96791308; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:06:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4354C91307 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:06:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2F1135DDEB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:06:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18B65DD9C for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12T2T>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:06:49 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB27@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: MED for Originated Routes (text) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:06:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id TAA15098 What should the MED be for originated routes to IBGP? No Med? All 1's? Configurable? Is it in the draft? Is this a new issue? Do you want more questions? (sorry about the html) Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA15039 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0EE5C91306; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CE2E191307; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6132791306 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 415D25DE09; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31D65DD9C for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12T23>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:05:24 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB26@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: MED for Originated Routes Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:05:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C26A68.302F1450" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A68.302F1450 Content-Type: text/plain What should the MED be for originated routes to IBGP? No Med? All 1's? Configurable? Is it in the draft? Is this a new issue? Do you want more questions? ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A68.302F1450 Content-Type: text/html <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} h1 {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.25in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} h2 {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.8in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.3in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, li.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, div.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.25in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} p.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, li.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, div.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center; font-size:20.0pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold;} span.EmailStyle19 {font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>What should the MED be for originated routes to IBGP? No Med? All 1's? Configurable? Is it in the draft? Is this a new issue? Do you want more questions?</span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A68.302F1450-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14807 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6B66691305; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 327B191306; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9518A91305 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 799BD5DE0A; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A7C5DE09 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17wsT3-000Jc2-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:59:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:57:54 -0700 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <513567069.20021002155754@psg.com> To: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In-Reply-To: <200210012336.TAA53015@workhorse.fictitious.org> References: <200210012336.TAA53015@workhorse.fictitious.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, Sounds like we have another issue to fix. If so, Andrew, could you please put this on the list? -- Alex Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 4:36:25 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > In message <138175081333.20020930112034@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes: >> Yakov, >> >> [...] >> >> Multipath is >> >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing protocol. There >> >> should be a good reason to want something like this in a separate >> >> document. Do we have one in this case? >> >> > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec completed within >> > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add >> > substantial new material to the spec. >> >> I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best >> path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be quite important >> from the perspective of interoperability and description of further >> extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right people together >> and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute to buying >> the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff >> within a month? >> >> BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection >> algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe >> what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? >> >> Alex > Alex, > Two prior issues were use of "shortest AS path" and a detail of "MED > handling". The former is in there, the latter is still a little > deficient. > The prior issue was inclusion of "shortest AS path" which wasn't in > earlier BGP-4 but Cisco has always done. It is now in there. It > reflects what Cisco does. Everyone else seems to have a "Cisco BGP > compatibility" knob to enable it (typically enabled by default). > The other issue was MED handling. In "5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC": > A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration > which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a > route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference > of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases > 1 and 2). > An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the > value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external > link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree > of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision > process phases 1 and 2). > This doesn't sufficiently address the issue. > The MED step in the decision process is (in 9.1.2.2): > c) Remove from consideration routes with less-preferred > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes. MULTI_EXIT_DISC is only comparable > between routes learned from the same neighboring AS. Routes which > do not have the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute are considered to have > the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value. > This is also described in the following procedure: > for m = all routes still under consideration > for n = all routes still under consideration > if (neighborAS(m) == neighborAS(n)) and (MED(n) < MED(m)) > remove route m from consideration > In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the > value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest > possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. > Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor > AS from which the route was received. > The problem is that a route loop can be formed. > To avoid the route loop, two suggestions were made (2-3 years ago and > nothing was done). One was to make MED(n) return infinity if there > was no MULTI_EXIT_DISC. The other was to consider MULTI_EXIT_DISC in > the decision process only for the purpose of selecting among the EBGP > peers, then remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC, then use that best route in > comparisons to IBGP learned routes. > The statement in 5.1.4 "This MAY be done prior to determining the > degree of preference of the route and performing route selection > (decision process phases 1 and 2)" does not sufficiently address this. > This implies that you MAY also remove after route selection, in which > case field experience indicates you WILL get burned (unless you know > about the caveat above). Initially this came up as an > interoperability issue but later it was proven (in the field) that a > Cisco and another Cisco could form a route loop until Cisco made this > change. > Additional wording is needed either in 5.1.4 or in 9.1.2.2. I suggest > we put a forward reference in 5.1.4: > [...]. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference > of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases > 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. > Then in 9.1.2.2 add a clarificatio to the neighborAS(n) function and > add to the existing text. > Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the > neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is > learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other > IBGP speaker learned the route, not the internal AS. > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing > a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be > considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them > removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared > to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose > MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. > Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the > comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the > MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to > cause route loops. > The loop is the classic I prefer your and you prefer mine problem. It > occurs when the router is configured to remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC and > advertise out a route so other routers can use IGP cost to select the > best route. If two routers do this, as soon as they hear the route > with no MULTI_EXIT_DISC from the other peer they start forwarding > toward that peer but they continue to advertise to it since others > IBPG peers are expected to select among the MULTI_EXIT_DISC free IBGP > learned routes using the next step in the decision process, IGP cost. > In this case, what you want is each router to prefer its own EBGP > route, even though it has a MULTI_EXIT_DISC and the IBGP learned route > from the same neighbor AS has had its MULTI_EXIT_DISC stripped off (or > didn't have one, you can't tell which it is). You then want all of > the IBGP peers with a MULTI_EXIT_DISC free route from that AS, or that > have stripped the MULTI_EXIT_DISC to form one, to advertise them. > Others in the AS will then use IGP cost to further resolve which exit > point to use. It make a difference when the route is the aggregate > route of another major provider. IGP cost yields what ISPs call "hot > potatoe routing" and MED selects among multiple heavily loaded > provider interconnects. > [Aside: Having a missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC default to infinity would do > exactly what the ISPs want it to do in the first place and be a lot > easier to explain but we didn't fix that 2-3 years ago when the issue > came up even though we had WG consensus that it was the right thing to > do. The authors didn't act on it at the time (because Cisco didn't do > it that way and the authors preferred to sit on the draft). At this > point we might as well adequately document what we ended up with.... > End of soapbox. I don't take myself all that seriously so others > shouldn't either. :-)] > Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14470 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 96E6E91206; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 68D5B91305; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E524591206 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CD4865DDE8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07AB5DDDB for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17wsIy-000JDR-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:49:20 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:47:29 -0700 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <852942100.20021002154729@psg.com> To: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?B?QWJhcmJhbmVsLA0KICAgIEJlbmphbWlu?= <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>, <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: issue 11 In-Reply-To: <200210020024.UAA53715@workhorse.fictitious.org> References: <200210020024.UAA53715@workhorse.fictitious.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, Agree with your overview of BGP multipath. Regarding a separate document for this... I'm trying to find a convincing reason that would overweight the importance of this part, something like "this is really new and unexplored", or "it would really take months for the WG to converge on", etc. But it seems that we know what the text should talk about and what the considerations are (such as ECMP load sharing that you talk about in your other message). If this is so, then I ask myself why is it a problem to put this in the spec? Maybe yourself and the chairs could take me off the stage and beat me up behind the curtain so I could then come back to the list and say "a separate doc makes sense". I have no problem admitting I was wrong... -- Alex Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 5:24:46 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > In message <154255622085.20021001094255@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes: >> Yakov, >> >> >> It would be smarter to assign the next hop address to a virtual >> >> interface (e.g. Loopback Interface address) thus if the peer has two >> >> physical interfaces to current router, there is only one route. >> >> Thus the load balancing issue is transparent to the BGP routing >> >> and only obvious in the forwarding plane. >> >> > And if it is transparent to the BGP routing, then there is no >> > need to have it in the base spec. Agreed ? >> >> Note that what Ben described above is not BGP multipath, but >> load-balancing based on IGP multipath, and right, _this_ one doesn't >> belong in the spec. >> >> Alex > Alex, > In addition to IGP multihop, there are two cases of BGP multipath. > In IGP multihop there is one BGP advertisement but to ways to reach th > BGP NEXT_HOP via the IGP. > In one case of BGP multihop, two (or more) IBGP routers peering with > the same external AS have equal routes to a destination and are an > equal cost away from a third router. BGP multihop is applicable to > that third router. Without BGP multihop, BGP would normally pick the > BGP NEXT_HOP of the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers > (using BGP Identifier) and use that. The IGP lookup would yield one > next hop. With BGP multihop, BGP uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of both > advertisements. Each BGP NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one > or more IGP next hop). > The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP > multipath are external. Seldom does IGP multipath come into play for > EBGP (odd tunneled EBGP mutlihop cases maybe). Typically the load is > split among two (or more) routers in the same AS. > If in EBGP multipath you split among routers in difference AS, an > aggregate should be formed. This is still prior to the IGP cost rule > in the route selection. > Normally one would not combine IBGP and EBGP in multihop given that > the decsion point for multihop is after "d" in 9.1.2.2. If the > multihop decision was prior to "d", then two routers each with an > external peering would forward some of the traffic to each other and > for some src/dst pairs, they'd form a loop. [So don't do that!] > This is getting to be a lot to add to the base spec. I hope we've > convinced you that we should put it in another document. > Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA12850 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:10:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B262491301; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 36BD691302; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE1891301 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 30EAF5DE01; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09B65DDF2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12TB2>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:08:21 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB21@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Refusing connections in Idle Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:08:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Another "lost issue" ???... Neither Juniper nor Cisco refuse connections for an exponentially increasing period after closing due to an error. Cisco actually accepts incoming connections while in Idle. Juniper goes quickly into Active. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA12699 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 984A9912D4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 659E391300; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210F5912D4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id F23D95DE09; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BBA05DDF2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA68071; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:06:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210022206.SAA68071@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: Active Route -- OT In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:29:34 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB11@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 18:06:24 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB11@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > "Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP > *not* the BGP prefix itself." > > Wrong. Synchronized (Cisco Term) implies that the route (set of > destinations) has been learned via an IGP (including connected and direct). > IBGP learned routes must be synchronized to be advertised via EBGP, Post > 12.0(6???) added that un-synchronized routes may not be used for local > forwarding. Synch can be config'd off. > > NEXT_HOP must always be resolvable, no way to config this off. Maybe I'm wrong on how Cisco uses "synchronized". Last I had the discussion on whether to enable synchronized was a long time ago and I quite sure that at that time the Cisco recursive lookup had to resolve to a next hop before the route could be advertised. I could have been wrong then, confused with the corresponding gated restriction, or they could have changed it. If so I stand corrected. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA11081 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:28:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8D7CD912D0; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5CD07912D5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C971912D0 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 179D35DE05; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D545DE06 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12S7Z>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:28:21 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB20@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 8 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:28:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk IOS defaults to 5 seconds for MinRouteAdvertisementInterval for IBGP, which I think is good since you want you AS to agree, whereas in EBGP you are more concerned with not flapping. -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:50 AM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 8 Folks, I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker shall apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter will not be applied on a "per peer" basis. Any objections ? Yakov. The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA10978 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id EABFC912A7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B81A6912D0; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC62912A7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 242FD5DE05; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43085DDF5 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12S7T>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:25:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB1F@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Martin, Christian'" <cmartin@gnilink.net>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:25:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk How about(since the new proposed paragraph has a different meaning, maybe this should be in separate paragraph): "A BGP speaker MUST NOT advertise sets of destinations that are not locally reachable." Seems obvious, but the only place I have found this is RFC1812: "Routers MUST NOT by default redistribute routing data they do not themselves use, trust or otherwise consider valid." --which seems to imply that you could configure a router to advertise routes that you do not use ("by default"). Also, the word "redistribute" now has a different meaning (in RFC1812 it meant "advertise", whereas in common usage now it means "leak"/"export" routing information from one routing protocol into another routing protocol). -----Original Message----- From: Martin, Christian [mailto:cmartin@gnilink.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:11 PM To: 'Natale, Jonathan'; Martin, Christian Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route That is what I meant. We have two choices: 1) Announce only if it is the best BGP route and the route exists in the rib. -or- 2) Announce only if it is the best route and the route was learned via BGP and it is in your RIB. This about covers it, I think. -chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Natale, Jonathan [mailto:JNatale@celoxnetworks.com] >Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:33 AM >To: 'Martin, Christian' >Cc: idr@merit.edu >Subject: RE: Active Route > > >Christian, > >Thank you for replying. > >Your change would not cover the case, for example, where the >speaker uses a static route that is not redistributed into bgp >to reach a set of destinations that is also learned via bgp. > >I was thinking of: >"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >its peers only routes whose set of destinations >are reachable per the local Routing Table." > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Martin, Christian [mailto:cmartin@gnilink.net] >Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:28 AM >To: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu >Subject: RE: Active Route > >Jonathan, > >> >>"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >>its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in >>neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." >> >>This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp >>route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same >>destination (for example, based on administrative distance), >>then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. >>This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE >>[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= >>"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. >> >>Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be >>completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to >>advertise a route to a destination that is not locally >>reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which >>is why it should not be removed) bad. > >This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper interpreted >the spec differently. As I see it, if the route is in the >routing table, you can announce it. To be more specific, and >to your point Jonathan, we should say this - or say the converse: > >"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in >neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it >itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best >path to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP >peer, or deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > >Regards, >-chris > > > > >> >>Thank you. >> > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA10412 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 976AD9128C; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 62E0B9129B; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F549128C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:14:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 372B85DE04; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:14:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC395DDF5 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (wawa.juniper.net [172.17.20.55]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92LEYm79858; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:14:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dennis@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210022114.g92LEYm79858@merlot.juniper.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Active Route In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:58:43 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB1A@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 14:14:34 -0700 From: Dennis Ferguson <dennis@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and for > actually understanding what I am [trying] to say. I agree with > everything you say, particularly "it is the way some of the world works" > and this is why I am proposing the change. Also, the existing text does > not describe Juniper either since they "strictly conform to the > quoted behavior for both EBGP and IBGP", whereas the existing text > only applies EBGP. I think the existing text says you must only advertise routes you are using for forwarding to your EBGP neighbours, but doesn't place much of a requirement at all on what you do or don't advertise to your IBGP neighbours. Given the first constraint I don't think it actually matters all that much how you handle the second, there are several ways to end up at the same end result. What Juniper routers prefer to do is something the existing text gives them the freedom to do. > I am not sure if you agree with the change or not. On the one hand you > say that Cisco's behavior is a bug, but on the other hand you say that > it would be hard to find practical cases where the above algorithm > would actually break much of anything. > > Do you agree or not? I have this view that routing protocols should be constrained to be basically correct (i.e. do what is necessary to prevent loops and otherwise ensure that they can actually reach the destinations they say they can), but that anything else is fair game. I don't like what Cisco does, and certainly wouldn't have wanted the original BGP spec to say this, since it is hard to think through a theoretical assurance of basic correctness compared to just constraining routers to advertise only the routes they are using. On the other hand, they did it this way anyway and we now have a lot of experience which says that routers can behave like this without causing any particular damage, so I don't object to a change which makes the document more closely reflect the practical reality. Dennis Ferguson Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09553 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:58:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 112B891236; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D11489128C; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C8A91236 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5A6DE5DE06; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6EC5DDEB for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA67381; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:57:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210022057.QAA67381@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> Cc: curtis@fictitious.org, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 8 In-reply-to: Your message of "02 Oct 2002 10:59:42 PDT." <1033581582.2301.26.camel@riga> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:57:26 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1033581582.2301.26.camel@riga>, Justin Fletcher writes: > On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 10:23, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > > > In message <1033574178.27465.34.camel@riga>, Justin Fletcher writes: > > > > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > > > > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > > > > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > > > > 1.0. > > > > > > I'd suggest "uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.25" > > > to ensure the average is the configured interval. > > > > > > Justin Fletcher > > > > > > This is just a suggested default value and an implementor is free to > > use another such as .75 to 1.25 (and it would be a good idea to > > document it clearly). Some conformance freak might take this as > > gospel and also check the uniformness of the random distribution but > > that too is a recommended default and selection from some other > > distribution (tail truncated) would still be compliant. Someone might > > pick .75 to 1.25 if preserving the mean value seemed more appealing > > and someone else might use another distribution if it saved a few CPU > > cycles and both would be OK. > > > > Briefly - it doesn't matter. > > > > Curtis > > That is rather the question, isn't it? If we're looking at this from > a new implementor's point of view, how do you know that this doesn't > matter from reading text that reads "shall be determined"? The wording changes I made stated this as a recommendation. I'm sorry for the inaccuracy in my comment. It should be a recommendation. > If most implementations use other values and it doesn't matter, > I'd suggest the first line of the text to read > > "A recommended amount of jitter to be introduced may be determined by" > > In retrospect, I'd be happy with either the original text or any of the > proposed changes; it's not a strong opinion :-) and I wouldn't have > raised the issue in the first place if I'd done my homework & checked > the RFC. > > Justin Please consider the substitute text I suggested. Relaxing the jitter statement to a recommended default is one of the changes I suggested. You are correct in that as it is now stated, the jitter is not configurable and must be implemented as specified. This should be fixed. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA07378 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4051E912FF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0DA5091300; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:07:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0F9912FF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5CEB05DDFA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130A55DDD9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12SSY>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:07:11 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EB91@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 62 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:07:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk d'Accord. Thanks! Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. egray@celoxnetworks.com 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:25 PM > To: Gray, Eric > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 62 > > Eric, > > > In addition to the change Yakov proposes, something > > may need to be done with respect to the following > > text as well. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In section 2 (Introduction), sixth paragraph > > > > BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the > > need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, > > acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the > > transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used in addition to > > BGP's own authentication mechanisms. The error notification mechanism > > used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" > > close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the > > connection is closed. > > > > Could be changed to > > > > BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the > > need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, > > acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by > > the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used. The error > > notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport > > protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding > > data will be delivered before the connection is closed. > > The "reliable transport protocol" used by BGP is TCP. With this in mind > how about the following: > > BGP uses TCP [RFC793] as its transport protocol. This eliminates > the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, > acknowledgment, and sequencing. BGP listens on TCP port 179. Any > authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be > used. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that TCP > supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will > be delivered before the connection is closed. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In section 4.1 (Message Header Format), after the figure > > > > Marker: > > > > This 16-octet field contains a value that the receiver of the > > message can predict. If the Type of the message is OPEN, or if > > the OPEN message carries no Authentication Information (as an > > Optional Parameter), then the Marker must be all ones. > > Otherwise, the value of the marker can be predicted by some a > > computation specified as part of the authentication mechanism > > (which is specified as part of the Authentication Information) > > used. The Marker can be used to detect loss of synchronization > > between a pair of BGP peers, and to authenticate incoming BGP > > messages. > > > > This could be changed to: > > > > Marker: > > > > This 16-octet field is included for compatibility; it must be > > set to all ones. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In section 6.1 (Message Header error handling), second paragraph > > > > The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all > > ones if the message type is OPEN. The expected value of the Marker > > field for all other types of BGP messages determined based on the > > presence of the Authentication Information Optional Parameter in the > > BGP OPEN message and the actual authentication mechanism (if the > > Authentication Information in the BGP OPEN message is present). If > > the Marker field of the message header is not the expected one, then > > a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to > > Connection Not Synchronized. > > > > Which could be replaced by > > > > The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all > > ones. If the Marker field of the message header is not as expected, > > then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is > > set to Connection Not Synchronized. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Also, the last paragraph in section 6.2 (OPEN message error handling) > > > > If the OPEN message carries Authentication Information (as an > > Optional Parameter), then the corresponding authentication procedure > > is invoked. If the authentication procedure (based on Authentication > > Code and Authentication Data) fails, then the Error Subcode is set to > > Authentication Failure. > > > > Could be deleted. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Finally, we need to deal with bullet 6 in Appendix 4 (which will > > probably occur anyway since Appendix 4 needs to be re-written to > > reflect that this new RFC differs from RFC 1771 instead of 1105). > > Differences between this document and RFC1771 is in Appendix 1, > not Appendix 4. Appendix 1 will have the text to indicate that > the Authentication Information parameter is eliminated. > > Yakov. > > > > > > > Eric W. Gray > > Systems Architect > > Celox Networks, Inc. > > egray@celoxnetworks.com > > 508 305 7214 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:24 PM > > > To: idr@merit.edu > > > Subject: issue 62 > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > ---- > > > Status: No Consensus > > > Change: Potentially > > > Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should > deprecate > > > the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 > in > > > favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new > text > > > for > > > the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. > > > > > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: > > > > > > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > > > > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): > > > > > > > > > This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP > > > peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet > > > Authentication Code followed by a variable length > > > Authentication Data. > > > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > | Auth. Code | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > + > > > | > | > > > | Authentication Data > | > > > | > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > + > > > > > > > > > Authentication Code: > > > > > > This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the > > > authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an > > > authentication mechanism is specified for use within > > > BGP, three things must be included in the > > > specification: > > > > > > - the value of the Authentication Code which > indicates > > > use of the mechanism, > > > - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, > and > > > - the algorithm for computing values of Marker > fields. > > > > > > Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be > > > used in establishing the transport level connection. > > > > > > Authentication Data: > > > > > > Authentication Data is a variable length field that > is > > > interpreted according to the value of the > > > Authentication Code field. > > > > > > If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: > > > > > > This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information > > > optional parameter. > > > > > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06978 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:59:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CA910912FE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 99EBF912FF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DFD912FE for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 17A6E5DD93; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75155DDD9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12SR1>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:58:43 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB1A@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Dennis Ferguson'" <dennis@juniper.net>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:58:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Dennis, Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and for actually understanding what I am [trying] to say. I agree with everything you say, particularly "it is the way some of the world works" and this is why I am proposing the change. Also, the existing text does not describe Juniper either since they "strictly conform to the quoted behavior for both EBGP and IBGP", whereas the existing text only applies EBGP. I am not sure if you agree with the change or not. On the one hand you say that Cisco's behavior is a bug, but on the other hand you say that it would be hard to find practical cases where the above algorithm would actually break much of anything. Do you agree or not? Thank you. -Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Ferguson [mailto:dennis@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:29 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Active Route Jon, > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers > (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only > those routes that it itself uses." > > This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp route to a > destination but does not have bgp route to the same destination (for > example, based on administrative distance), then the speaker may not > advertise that route to it's peers. This is true on Juniper by default for > EBGP, but is NOT TRUE [ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on > Juniper if ~= "advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on > Cisco. I would note that, for implementation reasons, it requires a moderately unnatural act for Juniper routers to ever advertise a route to any BGP peer, whether internal or external, which is not the route it is using for forwarding. I suspect that if you don't add "advertise inactive", you'll find that the routers strictly conform to the quoted behaviour for both EBGP and IBGP. The knob is a relatively late addition added as a concession to the fact that people are used to the Cisco behaviour, and some have built configurations which depend on it. I personally consider the Cisco behaviour to be a bug, but it is the way some of the world works. > Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be completely removed. > This means that it will be allowable to advertise a route to a destination > that is not locally reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- > which is why it should not be removed) bad. I think the algorithm Juniper routers use when the knob is enabled is that there are two routes potentially available for readvertisement, the route which the router is using for forwarding and the best BGP route which would be usable for forwarding if the preferred (non-BGP) route(s) wasn't present. If policy prohibits readvertisement of the first route but permits readvertisement of the second route, the second route is readvertised. While telling lies about the route you are using seems theoretically fragile it is, however, hard to find practical cases where the above algorithm would actually break much of anything. Dennis Ferguson Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06721 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:55:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4D262912FD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:54:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 16777912FE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:54:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2208912FD for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C5D715DDF5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542585DDD9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28153; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28018; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7PRXH>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:53:35 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F17@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be, BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:53:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:44 PM > To: Abarbanel, Benjamin > Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be; BGP > mailing list > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > In message > <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F13@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>, > "Abarbanel, Benjamin" writes: > > Curtis > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM > > > To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, > > > hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ > > > es: > > > > > > > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same > > > time I forward > > > > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS > > > border routers (bu > > > > t > > > > to no other routers). > > > > > > This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop > needs to be in > > > the IGP. > > > > > > > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router > > > (router B) to pass thos > > > > e > > > > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS > > > via an EBGP connecti > > > > on. > > > > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) > > > > > > Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP > > > *not* the BGP prefix itself. > > > > > > There is never a need to put the destination prefix into > the IGP if it > > > is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are originating a > > > prefix and you want it to go out with specific attributes such as > > > specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP communities some > > > special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > > > > > > > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > > > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP > only) routers is by > > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > > {\begin{aside} > > As someone formerly with two major ISPs, I'd say your AS is > broken. Use route-reflectors if its just a matter of wanting to > reduce the mesh. If you have routers or other device that don't do > BGP, get rid of them or arrange so that they can use a default route > (and then get then fixed or get rid of them). > > This does happen with some very stupid and somewhat specialized edge > boxes which end up getting used because they are somewhat specialized > and do something right that is needed. Its usually sufficient to give > them a default route to something with a bit more IP intelligence (and > then get rid of them if at all possible). It is common to front end a > box like this with a small router just for this purpose. This comment > on my part is really an aside though. > > In practice, if you absolutely needed BGP injected into the IGP (and > hopefully a subset of the 250,000 BGP routes) you can export the IBGP > learned routes to EBGP so as not to lose the BGP attributes. It is > out of scope for the spec as we've already stated numerous times. > My only point is, if its such a TABOO thing to not export BGP to IGP, then we need to find a home for this point that is made very clearly as a rule for something NOT to do. Hopefully in due time vendors will remove the knob that allows this to happen and thus eliminate the need to document the problem. BTW: If we move to IPv6, there are a maximum of only 8196 global Internet routes in the BGP table (for EBGP routes). Would this issue become non-existant when that happens? > \end{aside} > > The stance as far as the protocol spec goes is that BGP/IGP > interactions are out of scope. Special cases to support a broken AS > (one with incomplete IBGP connectivity) is definitely out of scope. > > > > > > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B > > > will forward routes > > > > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for > > > those routes the > > > > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has > > > typically a higher > > > > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > > > > > > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a > > > BGP speaker > > > > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those > > > routes that it itself > > > > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route > which in the FIB. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > > > > > The only way to fully address all of the instances of this sort of > > > objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP implementations > allow the > > > user to do things that violate the protocol specification in minor > > > ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes with > questionalble > > > uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although > this statement > > > is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. > > > > > This although is sometimes true, is bordering on being > rediculous for a > > spec. I agree, you do not want to add this or the reader > will stop reading > > the spec. > > > > Ben > > I did mention it with the intent to show that it borders on ridiculous > to try to accommodate all ways in which you can build a semi-broken > BGP network or build one with semi-broken equipment and get it to > actually work. We seem to agree that we don't want to go down that > road, either enumerating all of the cases or with the general caveat. > > Curtis > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06261 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2AFF4912FC; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E053C912FD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77755912FC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5CE485DDF7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7225DDE7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA67025; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:44:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210021944.PAA67025@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be, BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: Active Route In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:41:18 EDT." <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F13@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:44:02 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F13@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" writes: > Curtis > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM > > To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > > Cc: BGP mailing list > > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > > > > In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, > > hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ > > es: > > > > > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same > > time I forward > > > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS > > border routers (bu > > > t > > > to no other routers). > > > > This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop needs to be in > > the IGP. > > > > > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router > > (router B) to pass thos > > > e > > > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS > > via an EBGP connecti > > > on. > > > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) > > > > Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP > > *not* the BGP prefix itself. > > > > There is never a need to put the destination prefix into the IGP if it > > is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are originating a > > prefix and you want it to go out with specific attributes such as > > specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP communities some > > special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > > > > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? > > The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP only) routers is by > redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? {\begin{aside} As someone formerly with two major ISPs, I'd say your AS is broken. Use route-reflectors if its just a matter of wanting to reduce the mesh. If you have routers or other device that don't do BGP, get rid of them or arrange so that they can use a default route (and then get then fixed or get rid of them). This does happen with some very stupid and somewhat specialized edge boxes which end up getting used because they are somewhat specialized and do something right that is needed. Its usually sufficient to give them a default route to something with a bit more IP intelligence (and then get rid of them if at all possible). It is common to front end a box like this with a small router just for this purpose. This comment on my part is really an aside though. In practice, if you absolutely needed BGP injected into the IGP (and hopefully a subset of the 250,000 BGP routes) you can export the IBGP learned routes to EBGP so as not to lose the BGP attributes. It is out of scope for the spec as we've already stated numerous times. \end{aside} The stance as far as the protocol spec goes is that BGP/IGP interactions are out of scope. Special cases to support a broken AS (one with incomplete IBGP connectivity) is definitely out of scope. > > > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B > > will forward routes > > > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for > > those routes the > > > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has > > typically a higher > > > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > > > > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a > > BGP speaker > > > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those > > routes that it itself > > > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route which in the FIB. > > > > > > --- > > > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > > > The only way to fully address all of the instances of this sort of > > objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP implementations allow the > > user to do things that violate the protocol specification in minor > > ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes with questionalble > > uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although this statement > > is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. > > > This although is sometimes true, is bordering on being rediculous for a > spec. I agree, you do not want to add this or the reader will stop reading > the spec. > > Ben I did mention it with the intent to show that it borders on ridiculous to try to accommodate all ways in which you can build a semi-broken BGP network or build one with semi-broken equipment and get it to actually work. We seem to agree that we don't want to go down that road, either enumerating all of the cases or with the general caveat. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05470 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:29:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 89822912FA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 54BE8912FB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6F7912FA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3F2A75DDE8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06E15DDC3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (wawa.juniper.net [172.17.20.55]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92JT2m71005; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dennis@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021929.g92JT2m71005@merlot.juniper.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Active Route In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:19:49 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFC@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:29:02 -0700 From: Dennis Ferguson <dennis@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jon, > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers > (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only > those routes that it itself uses." > > This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp route to a > destination but does not have bgp route to the same destination (for > example, based on administrative distance), then the speaker may not > advertise that route to it's peers. This is true on Juniper by default for > EBGP, but is NOT TRUE [ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on > Juniper if ~= "advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on > Cisco. I would note that, for implementation reasons, it requires a moderately unnatural act for Juniper routers to ever advertise a route to any BGP peer, whether internal or external, which is not the route it is using for forwarding. I suspect that if you don't add "advertise inactive", you'll find that the routers strictly conform to the quoted behaviour for both EBGP and IBGP. The knob is a relatively late addition added as a concession to the fact that people are used to the Cisco behaviour, and some have built configurations which depend on it. I personally consider the Cisco behaviour to be a bug, but it is the way some of the world works. > Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be completely removed. > This means that it will be allowable to advertise a route to a destination > that is not locally reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- > which is why it should not be removed) bad. I think the algorithm Juniper routers use when the knob is enabled is that there are two routes potentially available for readvertisement, the route which the router is using for forwarding and the best BGP route which would be usable for forwarding if the preferred (non-BGP) route(s) wasn't present. If policy prohibits readvertisement of the first route but permits readvertisement of the second route, the second route is readvertised. While telling lies about the route you are using seems theoretically fragile it is, however, hard to find practical cases where the above algorithm would actually break much of anything. Dennis Ferguson Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05430 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 436A4912F9; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 10B5F912FA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25E2912F9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AF6BB5DDE7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700CA5DDC3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12SMT>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:28:09 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB19@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: notification 3/7 gone Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:28:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk The fact that notification 3/7 (and whatever else) got deprecated should be in the "Comparison with RFC1771" section please. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:12 PM To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 62 Yakov, On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: I would also suggest that if we remove it, in the section where we talk about optional paramters that we say something like: > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): Optional parameter type 1, Authentication Information, has been deprecated. I hate reading specs where I can see an obvious hole in the numbering scheme and not know why. (Much like our error subcodes for UPDATE) -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05242 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 505B7912F8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:25:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id F148E912FB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:25:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6B6912F8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 451195DDF2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B675DDEB for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92JPOm70732; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021925.g92JPOm70732@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 62 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:56:27 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EB8E@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <88003.1033586724.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:25:24 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Eric, > In addition to the change Yakov proposes, something > may need to be done with respect to the following > text as well. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > In section 2 (Introduction), sixth paragraph > > BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the > need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, > acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the > transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used in addition to > BGP's own authentication mechanisms. The error notification mechanism > used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" > close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the > connection is closed. > > Could be changed to > > BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the > need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, > acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by > the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used. The error > notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport > protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding > data will be delivered before the connection is closed. The "reliable transport protocol" used by BGP is TCP. With this in mind how about the following: BGP uses TCP [RFC793] as its transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. BGP listens on TCP port 179. Any authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be used. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that TCP supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > In section 4.1 (Message Header Format), after the figure > > Marker: > > This 16-octet field contains a value that the receiver of the > message can predict. If the Type of the message is OPEN, or if > the OPEN message carries no Authentication Information (as an > Optional Parameter), then the Marker must be all ones. > Otherwise, the value of the marker can be predicted by some a > computation specified as part of the authentication mechanism > (which is specified as part of the Authentication Information) > used. The Marker can be used to detect loss of synchronization > between a pair of BGP peers, and to authenticate incoming BGP > messages. > > This could be changed to: > > Marker: > > This 16-octet field is included for compatibility; it must be > set to all ones. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > In section 6.1 (Message Header error handling), second paragraph > > The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all > ones if the message type is OPEN. The expected value of the Marker > field for all other types of BGP messages determined based on the > presence of the Authentication Information Optional Parameter in the > BGP OPEN message and the actual authentication mechanism (if the > Authentication Information in the BGP OPEN message is present). If > the Marker field of the message header is not the expected one, then > a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to > Connection Not Synchronized. > > Which could be replaced by > > The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all > ones. If the Marker field of the message header is not as expected, > then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is > set to Connection Not Synchronized. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Also, the last paragraph in section 6.2 (OPEN message error handling) > > If the OPEN message carries Authentication Information (as an > Optional Parameter), then the corresponding authentication procedure > is invoked. If the authentication procedure (based on Authentication > Code and Authentication Data) fails, then the Error Subcode is set to > Authentication Failure. > > Could be deleted. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Finally, we need to deal with bullet 6 in Appendix 4 (which will > probably occur anyway since Appendix 4 needs to be re-written to > reflect that this new RFC differs from RFC 1771 instead of 1105). Differences between this document and RFC1771 is in Appendix 1, not Appendix 4. Appendix 1 will have the text to indicate that the Authentication Information parameter is eliminated. Yakov. > > > Eric W. Gray > Systems Architect > Celox Networks, Inc. > egray@celoxnetworks.com > 508 305 7214 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:24 PM > > To: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: issue 62 > > > > Folks, > > > > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ---- > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate > > the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in > > favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text > > for > > the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. > > > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: > > > > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): > > > > > > This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP > > peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet > > Authentication Code followed by a variable length > > Authentication Data. > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Auth. Code | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > | Authentication Data | > > | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > > > Authentication Code: > > > > This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the > > authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an > > authentication mechanism is specified for use within > > BGP, three things must be included in the > > specification: > > > > - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates > > use of the mechanism, > > - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and > > - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. > > > > Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be > > used in establishing the transport level connection. > > > > Authentication Data: > > > > Authentication Data is a variable length field that is > > interpreted according to the value of the > > Authentication Code field. > > > > If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: > > > > This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information > > optional parameter. > > > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05215 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:25:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D3D2A912F7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A2F4E912F8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91231912F7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7A1445DDE7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBB05DDD4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g92JOmq25372; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g92JObC25331; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g92JOb016754; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:24:37 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: FW: issue 62 Message-ID: <20021002152437.G28331@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB18@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB18@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>; from JNatale@celoxnetworks.com on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 03:21:18PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 03:21:18PM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > > "This document deprecates the use of the Authentication > > Information optional parameter [N]. > > > > ...does not need to be added, since this > > will be explained in the "Comparison with RFC1771", right? That is fine so long as we document what the number used to be. I don't care where it goes. :-) -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05041 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:21:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BA983912DA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 85E7A912F7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067DD912DA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DF1035DDD4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910685DDC3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12SLZ>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:21:19 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB18@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: FW: issue 62 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:21:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:17 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Subject: Re: issue 62 Jonathan, > Just remove it. Ok. Could you please repost it to the IDR mailing list. Thanks. Yakov. > > "This document deprecates the use of the Authentication > Information optional parameter [N]. > > ...does not need to be added, since this > will be explained in the "Comparison with RFC1771", right? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:50 PM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Subject: Re: issue 62 > > Jonathan, > > > agreed > > Do you agree with the first option (removing the text), or with > the second one (keeping the text, but adding the sentence) ? > > Yakov. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:24 PM > > To: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: issue 62 > > > > Folks, > > > > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate > > the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in > > favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text > for > > the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. > > > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: > > > > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): > > > > > > This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP > > peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet > > Authentication Code followed by a variable length > > Authentication Data. > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Auth. Code | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > | Authentication Data | > > | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > > > Authentication Code: > > > > This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the > > authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an > > authentication mechanism is specified for use within > > BGP, three things must be included in the > > specification: > > > > - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates > > use of the mechanism, > > - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and > > - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. > > > > Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be > > used in establishing the transport level connection. > > > > Authentication Data: > > > > Authentication Data is a variable length field that is > > interpreted according to the value of the > > Authentication Code field. > > > > If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: > > > > This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information > > optional parameter. > > > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA04772 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6989B912F5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:14:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 32D0F912F7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:14:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A4C912F5 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E2BED5DDD4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515015DDC3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92JEjm69688; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021914.g92JEjm69688@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 62 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:11:34 EDT." <20021002151133.F28331@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <84059.1033586084.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:14:45 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > > > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: > > I would also suggest that if we remove it, in the section where > we talk about optional paramters that we say something like: > > > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): > > Optional parameter type 1, Authentication Information, has been deprecated. That would be fine. Yakov. > I hate reading specs where I can see an obvious hole in the numbering > scheme and not know why. > > (Much like our error subcodes for UPDATE) > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA04548 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 885CF912F4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4F992912F5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B47912F4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1E1D15DDE7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7F85DDC3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g92JBbx24811; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g92JBYC24804; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g92JBYD14855; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:34 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 62 Message-ID: <20021002151133.F28331@nexthop.com> References: <200210021623.g92GNtm47128@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210021623.g92GNtm47128@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:23:55AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: I would also suggest that if we remove it, in the section where we talk about optional paramters that we say something like: > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): Optional parameter type 1, Authentication Information, has been deprecated. I hate reading specs where I can see an obvious hole in the numbering scheme and not know why. (Much like our error subcodes for UPDATE) -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA04520 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 80E38912F6; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 462DC912F5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7846F912F4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5D4615DDF2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from entmail.gnilink.net (entmail.gnilink.net [199.45.47.10]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FC05DDE7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by entmail.gnilink.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <TRPKQ1WL>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:10:40 -0400 Message-ID: <94B9091E1149D411A45C00508BACEB35015F333B@entmail.gnilink.com> From: "Martin, Christian" <cmartin@gnilink.net> To: "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, "Martin, Christian" <cmartin@gnilink.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:10:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk That is what I meant. We have two choices: 1) Announce only if it is the best BGP route and the route exists in the rib. -or- 2) Announce only if it is the best route and the route was learned via BGP and it is in your RIB. This about covers it, I think. -chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Natale, Jonathan [mailto:JNatale@celoxnetworks.com] >Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:33 AM >To: 'Martin, Christian' >Cc: idr@merit.edu >Subject: RE: Active Route > > >Christian, > >Thank you for replying. > >Your change would not cover the case, for example, where the >speaker uses a static route that is not redistributed into bgp >to reach a set of destinations that is also learned via bgp. > >I was thinking of: >"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >its peers only routes whose set of destinations >are reachable per the local Routing Table." > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Martin, Christian [mailto:cmartin@gnilink.net] >Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:28 AM >To: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu >Subject: RE: Active Route > >Jonathan, > >> >>"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >>its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in >>neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." >> >>This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp >>route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same >>destination (for example, based on administrative distance), >>then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. >>This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE >>[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= >>"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. >> >>Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be >>completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to >>advertise a route to a destination that is not locally >>reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which >>is why it should not be removed) bad. > >This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper interpreted >the spec differently. As I see it, if the route is in the >routing table, you can announce it. To be more specific, and >to your point Jonathan, we should say this - or say the converse: > >"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in >neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it >itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best >path to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP >peer, or deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > >Regards, >-chris > > > > >> >>Thank you. >> > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03647 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 97D7C912F2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5D0EC912F4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F041912F2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 407D65DDE3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FC55DDC3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92Incm60748; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:49:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021849.g92Incm60748@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 62 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:19:41 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EB8C@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <74084.1033584578.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:49:38 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Eric, > Yakov, > > I assume you meant "If there are _no_ objections ..." I meant "If there are objections" to removing the text, then we can keep the text, but will add the sentence I mentioned below. Yakov. > > Eric W. Gray > Systems Architect > Celox Networks, Inc. > egray@celoxnetworks.com > 508 305 7214 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:24 PM > > To: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: issue 62 > > > > Folks, > > > > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ---- > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate > > the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in > > favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text > > for > > the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. > > > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: > > > > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): > > > > > > This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP > > peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet > > Authentication Code followed by a variable length > > Authentication Data. > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Auth. Code | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > | Authentication Data | > > | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > > > Authentication Code: > > > > This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the > > authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an > > authentication mechanism is specified for use within > > BGP, three things must be included in the > > specification: > > > > - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates > use of the mechanism, > > - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and > > - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. > > > > Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be > > used in establishing the transport level connection. > > > > Authentication Data: > > > > Authentication Data is a variable length field that is > > interpreted according to the value of the > > Authentication Code field. > > > > If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: > > > > This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information > > optional parameter. > > > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02295 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7517E912D1; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 42637912EF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF080912D1 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 90A8D5DE0B; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D125DE02 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12S1X>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:16 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB15@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com>, "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 62 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk agree -----Original Message----- From: Gray, Eric [mailto:egray@celoxnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:56 PM To: 'Yakov Rekhter'; idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 62 In addition to the change Yakov proposes, something may need to be done with respect to the following text as well. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 2 (Introduction), sixth paragraph BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. Could be changed to BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 4.1 (Message Header Format), after the figure Marker: This 16-octet field contains a value that the receiver of the message can predict. If the Type of the message is OPEN, or if the OPEN message carries no Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the Marker must be all ones. Otherwise, the value of the marker can be predicted by some a computation specified as part of the authentication mechanism (which is specified as part of the Authentication Information) used. The Marker can be used to detect loss of synchronization between a pair of BGP peers, and to authenticate incoming BGP messages. This could be changed to: Marker: This 16-octet field is included for compatibility; it must be set to all ones. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 6.1 (Message Header error handling), second paragraph The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones if the message type is OPEN. The expected value of the Marker field for all other types of BGP messages determined based on the presence of the Authentication Information Optional Parameter in the BGP OPEN message and the actual authentication mechanism (if the Authentication Information in the BGP OPEN message is present). If the Marker field of the message header is not the expected one, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. Which could be replaced by The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones. If the Marker field of the message header is not as expected, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, the last paragraph in section 6.2 (OPEN message error handling) If the OPEN message carries Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the corresponding authentication procedure is invoked. If the authentication procedure (based on Authentication Code and Authentication Data) fails, then the Error Subcode is set to Authentication Failure. Could be deleted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, we need to deal with bullet 6 in Appendix 4 (which will probably occur anyway since Appendix 4 needs to be re-written to reflect that this new RFC differs from RFC 1771 instead of 1105). Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. egray@celoxnetworks.com 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:24 PM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 62 > > Folks, > > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate > the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in > favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text > for > the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: > > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): > > > This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP > peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet > Authentication Code followed by a variable length > Authentication Data. > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Auth. Code | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > | Authentication Data | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Authentication Code: > > This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the > authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an > authentication mechanism is specified for use within > BGP, three things must be included in the > specification: > > - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates > use of the mechanism, > - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and > - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. > > Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be > used in establishing the transport level connection. > > Authentication Data: > > Authentication Data is a variable length field that is > interpreted according to the value of the > Authentication Code field. > > If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: > > This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information > optional parameter. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01085 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 24823912EE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6E4B3912EF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70099912EE for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 45D045DDDD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from earthquake.proficient.net (fe0-0-access-1-sfo.proficient.net [65.209.247.5]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED26E5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riga ([10.0.0.25]) by earthquake.proficient.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:01:21 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 8 From: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200210021723.NAA64679@workhorse.fictitious.org> References: <200210021723.NAA64679@workhorse.fictitious.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-4) Date: 02 Oct 2002 10:59:42 -0700 Message-Id: <1033581582.2301.26.camel@riga> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2002 18:01:21.0195 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6C8AFB0:01C26A3D] Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 10:23, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message <1033574178.27465.34.camel@riga>, Justin Fletcher writes: > > > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > > > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > > > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > > > 1.0. > > > > I'd suggest "uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.25" > > to ensure the average is the configured interval. > > > > Justin Fletcher > > > This is just a suggested default value and an implementor is free to > use another such as .75 to 1.25 (and it would be a good idea to > document it clearly). Some conformance freak might take this as > gospel and also check the uniformness of the random distribution but > that too is a recommended default and selection from some other > distribution (tail truncated) would still be compliant. Someone might > pick .75 to 1.25 if preserving the mean value seemed more appealing > and someone else might use another distribution if it saved a few CPU > cycles and both would be OK. > > Briefly - it doesn't matter. > > Curtis That is rather the question, isn't it? If we're looking at this from a new implementor's point of view, how do you know that this doesn't matter from reading text that reads "shall be determined"? If most implementations use other values and it doesn't matter, I'd suggest the first line of the text to read "A recommended amount of jitter to be introduced may be determined by" In retrospect, I'd be happy with either the original text or any of the proposed changes; it's not a strong opinion :-) and I wouldn't have raised the issue in the first place if I'd done my homework & checked the RFC. Justin Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00835 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 53C0091257; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 25853912EE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60C791257 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 916F55DDDD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4994C5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12SA5>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EB8E@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 62 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In addition to the change Yakov proposes, something may need to be done with respect to the following text as well. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 2 (Introduction), sixth paragraph BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. Could be changed to BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used by the transport protocol (e.g., RFC2385 [10]) may be used. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 4.1 (Message Header Format), after the figure Marker: This 16-octet field contains a value that the receiver of the message can predict. If the Type of the message is OPEN, or if the OPEN message carries no Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the Marker must be all ones. Otherwise, the value of the marker can be predicted by some a computation specified as part of the authentication mechanism (which is specified as part of the Authentication Information) used. The Marker can be used to detect loss of synchronization between a pair of BGP peers, and to authenticate incoming BGP messages. This could be changed to: Marker: This 16-octet field is included for compatibility; it must be set to all ones. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 6.1 (Message Header error handling), second paragraph The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones if the message type is OPEN. The expected value of the Marker field for all other types of BGP messages determined based on the presence of the Authentication Information Optional Parameter in the BGP OPEN message and the actual authentication mechanism (if the Authentication Information in the BGP OPEN message is present). If the Marker field of the message header is not the expected one, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. Which could be replaced by The expected value of the Marker field of the message header is all ones. If the Marker field of the message header is not as expected, then a synchronization error has occurred and the Error Subcode is set to Connection Not Synchronized. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, the last paragraph in section 6.2 (OPEN message error handling) If the OPEN message carries Authentication Information (as an Optional Parameter), then the corresponding authentication procedure is invoked. If the authentication procedure (based on Authentication Code and Authentication Data) fails, then the Error Subcode is set to Authentication Failure. Could be deleted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, we need to deal with bullet 6 in Appendix 4 (which will probably occur anyway since Appendix 4 needs to be re-written to reflect that this new RFC differs from RFC 1771 instead of 1105). Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. egray@celoxnetworks.com 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:24 PM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 62 > > Folks, > > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate > the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in > favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text > for > the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: > > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): > > > This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP > peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet > Authentication Code followed by a variable length > Authentication Data. > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Auth. Code | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > | Authentication Data | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Authentication Code: > > This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the > authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an > authentication mechanism is specified for use within > BGP, three things must be included in the > specification: > > - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates > use of the mechanism, > - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and > - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. > > Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be > used in establishing the transport level connection. > > Authentication Data: > > Authentication Data is a variable length field that is > interpreted according to the value of the > Authentication Code field. > > If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: > > This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information > optional parameter. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29861 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5279B912ED; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1DCCF912EE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D2A912ED for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 942E55DDD9; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458085DDD4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12R8L>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:33:15 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB12@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Abarbanel, Benjamin'" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>, "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be Cc: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: Active Route - OT Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:33:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk "What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out?" Then you are mis-configured. Also, I agree with Curtis--redistributing BGP into IGP is a bad idea. A much better idea is to turn off synchronization (rumor was that it will be/is off by default in newer IOS). Juniper does not even have a synch concept (a good thing). -----Original Message----- From: Abarbanel, Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:41 PM To: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be Cc: BGP mailing list Subject: RE: Active Route Curtis > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM > To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > Cc: BGP mailing list > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, > hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ > es: > > > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same > time I forward > > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS > border routers (bu > > t > > to no other routers). > > This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop needs to be in > the IGP. > > > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router > (router B) to pass thos > > e > > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS > via an EBGP connecti > > on. > > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) > > Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP > *not* the BGP prefix itself. > > There is never a need to put the destination prefix into the IGP if it > is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are originating a > prefix and you want it to go out with specific attributes such as > specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP communities some > special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP only) routers is by redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B > will forward routes > > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for > those routes the > > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has > typically a higher > > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a > BGP speaker > > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those > routes that it itself > > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route which in the FIB. > > > > --- > > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > The only way to fully address all of the instances of this sort of > objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP implementations allow the > user to do things that violate the protocol specification in minor > ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes with questionalble > uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although this statement > is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. > This although is sometimes true, is bordering on being rediculous for a spec. I agree, you do not want to add this or the reader will stop reading the spec. Ben Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29703 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2D683912EB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E8C8D912ED; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90353912EB for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6FFC45DDD5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301625DDD4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12R7S>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:29:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB11@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route -- OT Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:29:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk "Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP *not* the BGP prefix itself." Wrong. Synchronized (Cisco Term) implies that the route (set of destinations) has been learned via an IGP (including connected and direct). IBGP learned routes must be synchronized to be advertised via EBGP, Post 12.0(6???) added that un-synchronized routes may not be used for local forwarding. Synch can be config'd off. NEXT_HOP must always be resolvable, no way to config this off. -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be Cc: BGP mailing list Subject: Re: Active Route In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ es: > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same time I forward > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS border routers (bu > t > to no other routers). This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop needs to be in the IGP. > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router (router B) to pass thos > e > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS via an EBGP connecti > on. > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP *not* the BGP prefix itself. There is never a need to put the destination prefix into the IGP if it is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are originating a prefix and you want it to go out with specific attributes such as specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP communities some special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B will forward routes > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for those routes the > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has typically a higher > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route which in the FIB. > > --- > Hans de Vleeschouwer The only way to fully address all of the instances of this sort of objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP implementations allow the user to do things that violate the protocol specification in minor ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes with questionalble uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although this statement is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29424 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:24:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BCBBF912E8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:24:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 85FBE912EB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:24:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37503912E8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:24:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1BEDE5DDD3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:24:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBAE5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:24:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA64679; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:23:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210021723.NAA64679@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 8 In-reply-to: Your message of "02 Oct 2002 08:56:17 PDT." <1033574178.27465.34.camel@riga> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:23:51 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1033574178.27465.34.camel@riga>, Justin Fletcher writes: > > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > > 1.0. > > I'd suggest "uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.25" > to ensure the average is the configured interval. > > Justin Fletcher This is just a suggested default value and an implementor is free to use another such as .75 to 1.25 (and it would be a good idea to document it clearly). Some conformance freak might take this as gospel and also check the uniformness of the random distribution but that too is a recommended default and selection from some other distribution (tail truncated) would still be compliant. Someone might pick .75 to 1.25 if preserving the mean value seemed more appealing and someone else might use another distribution if it saved a few CPU cycles and both would be OK. Briefly - it doesn't matter. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29212 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:20:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0EC5891223; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:19:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CEB7B912E8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796E291223 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 61C5E5DDD1; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A460E5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12R56>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:19:43 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0267EB8C@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 62 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:19:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, I assume you meant "If there are _no_ objections ..." Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. egray@celoxnetworks.com 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:24 PM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 62 > > Folks, > > 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate > the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in > favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text > for > the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. > > I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: > > This document defines the following Optional Parameters: > > a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): > > > This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP > peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet > Authentication Code followed by a variable length > Authentication Data. > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Auth. Code | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > | Authentication Data | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Authentication Code: > > This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the > authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an > authentication mechanism is specified for use within > BGP, three things must be included in the > specification: > > - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates > use of the mechanism, > - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and > - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. > > Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be > used in establishing the transport level connection. > > Authentication Data: > > Authentication Data is a variable length field that is > interpreted according to the value of the > Authentication Code field. > > If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: > > This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information > optional parameter. > > Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29088 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 20DAE912EC; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E5EC3912EB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67827912E8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 49E0E5DDCE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA7D5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12R5N>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:16:18 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB10@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 62 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:16:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk agreed -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:24 PM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 62 Folks, 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text for the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet Authentication Code followed by a variable length Authentication Data. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth. Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Authentication Data | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Authentication Code: This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an authentication mechanism is specified for use within BGP, three things must be included in the specification: - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates use of the mechanism, - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be used in establishing the transport level connection. Authentication Data: Authentication Data is a variable length field that is interpreted according to the value of the Authentication Code field. If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information optional parameter. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28931 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 07D1B912E6; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C74CF912E8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FF8912E6 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3F0005DDCE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F0935DDC4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA64645; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:12:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210021712.NAA64645@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 8 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 08:49:34 PDT." <200210021549.g92FnYm44337@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:12:57 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <200210021549.g92FnYm44337@merlot.juniper.net>, Yakov Rekhter writes : > Folks, > > I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: > > BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time > (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval > (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see > Section 9.2.1.1). > > The suggested value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. > > The suggested value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. > > The suggested value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold > Time. > > The suggested value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 > seconds. > > The suggested value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 > seconds. > > An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be > configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. > > To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages > by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be > applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, > Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A > given BGP speaker shall apply the same jitter to each of these > quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates > are being sent; that is, jitter will not be applied on a "per > peer" basis. > > Any objections ? minor improvement (not really an objection) -- s/suggested value/suggested default value/g Also s/shall apply the same jitter/may apply the same jitter/ (to each of these quantities regardless of ...). s/jitter will not be applied/jitter need not be configured/ (on a "per peer" basis). We allow both timers and jitter to be configured with fine granularity (per peer for BGP, down to per LSP for MPLS, with a reasonable inheritance heirarchy to allow a change in system defaults or at the peer group level, etc). I think others do as well but maybe not with quite the same flexibility. This seems to be forbidding configurable jitter using lower case normative (whatever difference that makes). > Yakov. > > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > 1.0. I'd like to change that last paragraph: The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. We *do* allow all timers to be configured and allow absolute values or relative values (a percentage of the base value). We also add the jitter to most timers (at least the MPLS ones) rather than make them smaller but that is a minor difference. [and you *can* really make a mess of things by configuring timers badly - but this is consistent with the "more rope please" customer requirement that we are all familiar with. :) ] Curtis ps - I hope this does not reopen the debate on timer verbs over what it means to "set" a timer. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28535 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7AB73912E5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 47FB5912EB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C1A912E5 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5E11B5DDC4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3C55DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RZH>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB0E@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Ben, No, the existing text (it was not Mike's suggestion) is fine. -----Original Message----- From: Abarbanel, Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:16 PM To: 'Michael C. Cambria'; idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Michael: Below > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael C. Cambria [mailto:cambria@fid4.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:49 AM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > Natale, Jonathan wrote: > > Christian, > > > > Thank you for replying. > > > > Your change would not cover the case, for example, where the speaker > > uses a static route that is not redistributed into bgp to reach > > a set of destinations that is also learned via bgp. > > > > I was thinking of: > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > > its peers only routes whose set of destinations > > are reachable per the local Routing Table." > > Would changing Martin's text: > > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path > > to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > to the text below work (removing the "best path" reference)? > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that the route to be > advertised is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > > This calls out that a speaker can't advertise a route to > neighboring ASs that are not known to BGP. Yet it does not > preclude a > route known to BGP from being advertised that has either the > destinaiton > or the NEXT_HOP (or both) reachable in the routing table via an IGP > route (e.g. due to admin distance) as required by 9.1.3: > > "A route shall not be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless the > destination and NEXT_HOP described by this route may be forwarded > appropriately by the Routing Table." > > I would like to slightly rephrase your suggestion: "A route shall not be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless this route or a similar route (i.e. IGP route) sharing the same prefix and NEXT_HOP address, is present and used for forwarding in the Routing Table. Ben > fire away :-) > > MikeC > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin, Christian [mailto:cmartin@gnilink.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:28 AM > > To: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu > > Subject: RE: Active Route > > > > Jonathan, > > > > > >>"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > >>its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > >>neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." > >> > >>This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp > >>route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same > >>destination (for example, based on administrative distance), > >>then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. > >>This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE > >>[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= > >>"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. > >> > >>Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be > >>completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to > >>advertise a route to a destination that is not locally > >>reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which > >>is why it should not be removed) bad. > > > > > > This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper > interpreted the spec > > differently. As I see it, if the route is in the routing > table, you can > > announce it. To be more specific, and to your point > Jonathan, we should say > > this - or say the converse: > > > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path > > to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > > > Regards, > > -chris > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thank you. > >> > > > > > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28508 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0BE87912E9; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C5326912E5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E44912E9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 310175DDC4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86DA5DDB7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RYP>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:38 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB0D@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 24 - consensus Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk ok -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:12 PM To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 24 - consensus Folks, I think we have consensus on this issue - add the following text to 3.1 Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28214 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 12358912E3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D5B2F912E4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9E8912E3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3F2A75DDD0; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12085DDC9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RX4>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:59:49 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB0C@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: route to null0 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:59:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk ok, I missed it, sorry. I still think it would be nice to add it in the aggregation section: Please change: "Route aggregation and information reduction techniques (see 9.2.2.1) may optionally be applied." to: "Route aggregation and information reduction techniques (see 9.2.2.1) may optionally be applied." -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:59 AM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: route to null0 Jonathan, > Yakov, > > Thanks! > > "A routing domain which performs summarization of multiple routes > must discard packets which match the summarization but do not match any > of the explicit routes which makes up the summarization." > > That covers it. > > I think adding a "[8]" (currently "[8]" is not explicitly cited anywhere) in > a strategic spot would be a good idea; I have seen this point missed by > some. It is cited in Introduction: BGP-4 provides a new set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [8, 9]. Yakov. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:27 AM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: route to null0 > > Jonathan, > > > If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated set of > > destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's routing > > table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one of the > > more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was > advertised > > to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate was > sent > > to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route that > > went away. > > > > I think the current draft stipulates that this should be handled by the > > speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or de-aggregating or > > something; there is no mention of the current working code's "null > solution" > > (as described above). > > See Section 4.2 RFC1519. > > Yakov. > > > > > > > > > Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x vs null0 ???). > > > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260 > > Content-Type: text/html > > > > <html> > > > > <head> > > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> > > > > > > <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> > > > > <style> > > <!-- > > /* Style Definitions */ > > p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal > > {margin:0in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > font-size:12.0pt; > > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > > h1 > > {margin-top:0in; > > margin-right:0in; > > margin-bottom:0in; > > margin-left:.5in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > text-indent:-.25in; > > page-break-after:avoid; > > font-size:16.0pt; > > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > > h2 > > {margin-top:0in; > > margin-right:0in; > > margin-bottom:0in; > > margin-left:.8in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > text-indent:-.3in; > > page-break-after:avoid; > > font-size:12.0pt; > > font-family:Arial;} > > a:link, span.MsoHyperlink > > {color:blue; > > text-decoration:underline;} > > a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed > > {color:purple; > > text-decoration:underline;} > > p.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, li.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, > div.StyleHeading > 1Arial12ptLeft > > {margin-top:0in; > > margin-right:0in; > > margin-bottom:0in; > > margin-left:.5in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > text-indent:-.25in; > > page-break-after:avoid; > > font-size:12.0pt; > > font-family:"Times New Roman"; > > font-weight:bold;} > > p.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, li.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, > div.StyleArial22 > ptBoldCentered > > {margin:0in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > text-align:center; > > font-size:20.0pt; > > font-family:Arial; > > font-weight:bold;} > > span.EmailStyle19 > > {font-family:Arial; > > color:windowtext;} > > @page Section1 > > {size:8.5in 11.0in; > > margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} > > div.Section1 > > {page:Section1;} > > /* List Definitions */ > > ol > > {margin-bottom:0in;} > > ul > > {margin-bottom:0in;} > > --> > > </style> > > > > </head> > > > > <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> > > > > <div class=Section1> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'>If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the > aggregated > > set of destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's > > routing table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event > that: > one > > of the more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was > > advertised to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the > aggregate > > was sent to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific > route > > that went away.</span></font></p> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'>I think the current draft stipulates that this should > be > > handled by the speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or > > de-aggregating or something; there is no mention of the current working > code' > s > > "null solution" (as described above).</span></font></p> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'>Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x > vs > > null0 ???).</span></font></p> > > > > </div> > > > > </body> > > > > </html> > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27287 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 65459912E2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 38A79912E3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DDB912E2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 03C2F5DDC3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C315DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14941; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14207; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7PFYS>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:17 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F13@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be Cc: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 PM > To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be > Cc: BGP mailing list > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, > hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ > es: > > > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same > time I forward > > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS > border routers (bu > > t > > to no other routers). > > This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop needs to be in > the IGP. > > > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router > (router B) to pass thos > > e > > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS > via an EBGP connecti > > on. > > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) > > Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP > *not* the BGP prefix itself. > > There is never a need to put the destination prefix into the IGP if it > is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are originating a > prefix and you want it to go out with specific attributes such as > specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP communities some > special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > What if your AS is not fully meshed as Hans pointed out? The only way to get external BGP routes to non-BGP (IGP only) routers is by redistributing them via IGP, and let IGP flood them, right? > > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B > will forward routes > > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for > those routes the > > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has > typically a higher > > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a > BGP speaker > > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those > routes that it itself > > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route which in the FIB. > > > > --- > > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > The only way to fully address all of the instances of this sort of > objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP implementations allow the > user to do things that violate the protocol specification in minor > ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes with questionalble > uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although this statement > is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. > This although is sometimes true, is bordering on being rediculous for a spec. I agree, you do not want to add this or the reader will stop reading the spec. Ben Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27158 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 71D5B912E1; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3F297912E2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F27F912E1 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id EB38B5DDC3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:39:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from earthquake.proficient.net (fe0-0-access-1-sfo.proficient.net [65.209.247.5]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E565DDB7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:39:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riga ([10.0.0.25]) by earthquake.proficient.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:39:15 -0700 Subject: RE: issue 8 From: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB0A@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB0A@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-4) Date: 02 Oct 2002 09:38:26 -0700 Message-Id: <1033576707.2302.5.camel@riga> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2002 16:39:15.0272 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EB47C80:01C26A32] Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 09:27, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > I disagree, that would not reflect current implementations. We are not > changing BGP, merely clarifying it. Yes, you're correct, and would also indicate a change from RFC1771; Yakov, consider the comment withdrawn. The proposed timer text is very clear. jf > -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Fletcher [mailto:jfletcher@proficient.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:56 AM > To: Yakov Rekhter > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 8 > > > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > > 1.0. > > I'd suggest "uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.25" > to ensure the average is the configured interval. > > Justin Fletcher Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26972 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5E75E912DF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2FE09912E1; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D195E912DF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D5C845DDB7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177075DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA64531; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:32:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210021632.MAA64531@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be Cc: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: Active Route In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:24:56 +0200." <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:32:40 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be>, hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be writ es: > > Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same time I forward > the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS border routers (bu > t > to no other routers). This is an incredibly bad idea. Only the BGP next_hop needs to be in the IGP. > At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router (router B) to pass thos > e > routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS via an EBGP connecti > on. > (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) Synchronise implies that the BGP next_hop is reachable via the IGP *not* the BGP prefix itself. There is never a need to put the destination prefix into the IGP if it is carried in IBGP except for the case where you are originating a prefix and you want it to go out with specific attributes such as specific BGP communities or indicate through BGP communities some special action such as punching a hole in an aggregate. > Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B will forward routes > learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for those routes the > reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has typically a higher > preference in ther FIB then IBGP). > > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route which in the FIB. > > --- > Hans de Vleeschouwer The only way to fully address all of the instances of this sort of objection is to add to the spec "Most BGP implementations allow the user to do things that violate the protocol specification in minor ways, sometimes with valid uses, but also sometimes with questionalble uses and sometimes with dire consequences". Although this statement is true, I don't don't think we need to add this. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26786 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CA463912DE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 99A1C912DF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59236912DE for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4720E5DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29F95DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RTB>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:27:02 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB0A@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Justin Fletcher'" <jfletcher@proficient.net>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 8 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:27:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I disagree, that would not reflect current implementations. We are not changing BGP, merely clarifying it. -----Original Message----- From: Justin Fletcher [mailto:jfletcher@proficient.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:56 AM To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8 > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > 1.0. I'd suggest "uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.25" to ensure the average is the configured interval. Justin Fletcher Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26600 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 95108912DD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 625FC912DE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A07A912DD for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E95635DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550335DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92GNtm47128 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021623.g92GNtm47128@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 62 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <14219.1033575835.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:23:55 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text for the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. I would suggest to remove the following text from the draft: This document defines the following Optional Parameters: a) Authentication Information (Parameter Type 1): This optional parameter may be used to authenticate a BGP peer. The Parameter Value field contains a 1-octet Authentication Code followed by a variable length Authentication Data. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth. Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Authentication Data | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Authentication Code: This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the authentication mechanism being used. Whenever an authentication mechanism is specified for use within BGP, three things must be included in the specification: - the value of the Authentication Code which indicates use of the mechanism, - the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and - the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields. Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be used in establishing the transport level connection. Authentication Data: Authentication Data is a variable length field that is interpreted according to the value of the Authentication Code field. If there are objections to this, then I would add the following: This document deprecates the use of the Authentication Information optional parameter. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26500 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8A936912DC; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 55E06912DD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0114A912DC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CA8365DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03265DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:21:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA64483; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:21:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210021621.MAA64483@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: route to null0 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:10:08 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB00@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:21:09 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB00@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand > this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260 > Content-Type: text/plain > > If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated set of > destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's routing > table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one of the > more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was advertised > to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate was sent > to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route that > went away. This is specific to one implementation (and similar in others). A data structure is needed to represent the aggregate and the route data structure is one that is clearly visible (in "show" commands) and understood by the user to be an internally generated aggregate. Avoiding the route loop with a less specific aggregate that overlaps the aggreagate that was formed is another good reason to use a route data structure. The effect is to black hole the destinations for which there are no more specific routes rather than loop. > I think the current draft stipulates that this should be handled by the > speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or de-aggregating or > something; there is no mention of the current working code's "null solution" > (as described above). There is no need to reflect one vendor's implementation details. It has no affect on the spec. If a different data structure is used and it doesn't appear in the "show ip route" or equivalent but is listed by a separate command that's fine with the BGP spec. If it also can transform a loop into a black hole, all the better. It would seem obvious enough that if the component routes go away, the aggregate must be deleted. It is also obvious enough that if you advertised the component routes (not doing a summary aggregate) that you still need to withdraw them if they go away. It also seems obvious enough that if the set of components change, the AS-SET, if used, has to be updated if it has changed. This is one reason why no one uses AS-SETs anymore, preferring ATOMIC_AGGREGATE. In no case can you advertise something and forget about it, not withdrawing the route if it is no longer valid. We don't need to explicitly state that this also holds true for aggregates. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26193 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D9F44912DB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A70C7912DC; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD141912DB for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C6CEE5DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE4C5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13869; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10309; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7P1X7>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:17 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F11@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Michael C. Cambria'" <cambria@fid4.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:16:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Michael: Below > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael C. Cambria [mailto:cambria@fid4.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:49 AM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Active Route > > > > > Natale, Jonathan wrote: > > Christian, > > > > Thank you for replying. > > > > Your change would not cover the case, for example, where the speaker > > uses a static route that is not redistributed into bgp to reach > > a set of destinations that is also learned via bgp. > > > > I was thinking of: > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > > its peers only routes whose set of destinations > > are reachable per the local Routing Table." > > Would changing Martin's text: > > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path > > to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > to the text below work (removing the "best path" reference)? > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that the route to be > advertised is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > > This calls out that a speaker can't advertise a route to > neighboring ASs that are not known to BGP. Yet it does not > preclude a > route known to BGP from being advertised that has either the > destinaiton > or the NEXT_HOP (or both) reachable in the routing table via an IGP > route (e.g. due to admin distance) as required by 9.1.3: > > "A route shall not be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless the > destination and NEXT_HOP described by this route may be forwarded > appropriately by the Routing Table." > > I would like to slightly rephrase your suggestion: "A route shall not be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless this route or a similar route (i.e. IGP route) sharing the same prefix and NEXT_HOP address, is present and used for forwarding in the Routing Table. Ben > fire away :-) > > MikeC > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin, Christian [mailto:cmartin@gnilink.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:28 AM > > To: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu > > Subject: RE: Active Route > > > > Jonathan, > > > > > >>"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > >>its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > >>neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." > >> > >>This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp > >>route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same > >>destination (for example, based on administrative distance), > >>then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. > >>This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE > >>[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= > >>"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. > >> > >>Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be > >>completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to > >>advertise a route to a destination that is not locally > >>reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which > >>is why it should not be removed) bad. > > > > > > This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper > interpreted the spec > > differently. As I see it, if the route is in the routing > table, you can > > announce it. To be more specific, and to your point > Jonathan, we should say > > this - or say the converse: > > > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path > > to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > > > Regards, > > -chris > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thank you. > >> > > > > > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26003 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D65AA912D7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9B9EA912DB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736D5912D7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5E0B15DDBE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E7F5DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92GBhm46084 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021611.g92GBhm46084@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 24 - consensus MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <10109.1033575103.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:11:43 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, I think we have consensus on this issue - add the following text to 3.1 Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25823 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BAC9F912D6; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 85DC6912D7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D0F912D6 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0FD265DDC3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07535DDBE for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RRD>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09:20 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB08@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Michael C. Cambria'" <cambria@fid4.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:09:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In reference to: ""locally reachable"? Do you mean BGP can't reach it (e.g. not in Loc-RIB?)" No, I mean that the router/speaker/switch/box can't reach it. But you bring up a good point--BGP must be able to reach it as well. But I think this is already covered by: "A route shall not be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless the destination and NEXT_HOP described by this route may be forwarded appropriately by the Routing Table." If you don't like "locally reachable", how about: "installed in the routing table" "in the local FIB" ... -----Original Message----- From: Michael C. Cambria [mailto:cambria@fid4.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:16 AM To: Natale, Jonathan Subject: Re: Active Route Natale, Jonathan wrote: > Folks, > > This issue seems to have been convoluted into issue 32.2. I am in agreement > with 32.2 (other than style/conciseness--I think it is a little long winded, > but I can live with it), but it is not what I raised. > > The issue I raised, and would like to be [re-]considered is with: > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers > (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only > those routes that it itself uses." I agree. This should remain and be clarified. I want to make sure I fully understand you. If I do, I have the same concern. > This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp route to a > destination but does not have bgp route to the same destination (for > example, based on administrative distance), then the speaker may not > advertise that route to it's peers. This is true on Juniper by default for > EBGP, but is NOT TRUE [ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on > Juniper if ~= "advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on > Cisco. I missed something. I understood until your "for example, based on administrative distance" example. Why would admin distance come up if there was no BGP route for the same destination as that of the IGP? Crossing out your example, I read the above to say if we delete the quoted text from the draft as proposed, one could advertise an IGP route that has no corresponding destination in Loc-RIB. Is this what you are saying? > Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be completely removed. > This means that it will be allowable to advertise a route to a destination > that is not locally reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- > which is why it should not be removed) bad. "locally reachable"? Do you mean BGP can't reach it (e.g. not in Loc-RIB?) Thanks, MikeC Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25702 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 038C6912D2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C4CA9912D5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A7C912D2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3253A5DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mcambria.fid4.com (h006097296569.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.202.75]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914CD5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fid4.com (mcambria3.avayactc.com [199.93.238.136]) by mcambria.fid4.com (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g92G4Xtq005607 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cambria@fid4.com) Message-ID: <3D9B1587.5000508@fid4.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:49:27 -0400 From: "Michael C. Cambria" <cambria@fid4.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020819 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Active Route References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB02@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Natale, Jonathan wrote: > Christian, > > Thank you for replying. > > Your change would not cover the case, for example, where the speaker > uses a static route that is not redistributed into bgp to reach > a set of destinations that is also learned via bgp. > > I was thinking of: > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > its peers only routes whose set of destinations > are reachable per the local Routing Table." Would changing Martin's text: > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path > to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." to the text below work (removing the "best path" reference)? "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that the route to be advertised is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." This calls out that a speaker can't advertise a route to neighboring ASs that are not known to BGP. Yet it does not preclude a route known to BGP from being advertised that has either the destinaiton or the NEXT_HOP (or both) reachable in the routing table via an IGP route (e.g. due to admin distance) as required by 9.1.3: "A route shall not be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless the destination and NEXT_HOP described by this route may be forwarded appropriately by the Routing Table." fire away :-) MikeC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin, Christian [mailto:cmartin@gnilink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:28 AM > To: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: Active Route > > Jonathan, > > >>"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >>its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in >>neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." >> >>This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp >>route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same >>destination (for example, based on administrative distance), >>then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. >>This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE >>[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= >>"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. >> >>Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be >>completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to >>advertise a route to a destination that is not locally >>reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which >>is why it should not be removed) bad. > > > This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper interpreted the spec > differently. As I see it, if the route is in the routing table, you can > announce it. To be more specific, and to your point Jonathan, we should say > this - or say the converse: > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path > to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > Regards, > -chris > > > > > >>Thank you. >> > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25608 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 27260912CF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D2947912D2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3D6912CF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CDDA85DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B575DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13316; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08444; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7P12Y>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:42 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F10@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 8 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:04:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, This section does the job well. I like it. You have my vote. Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:50 AM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: issue 8 > > > Folks, > > I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: > > BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time > (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), > MinASOriginationInterval > (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see > Section 9.2.1.1). > > The suggested value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. > > The suggested value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. > > The suggested value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold > Time. > > The suggested value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 > seconds. > > The suggested value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 > seconds. > > An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be > configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. > > To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages > by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be > applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, > Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A > given BGP speaker shall apply the same jitter to each of these > quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates > are being sent; that is, jitter will not be applied on a "per > peer" basis. > > Any objections ? > > Yakov. > > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > 1.0. > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25545 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BD565912CD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 76635912CF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF25912CD for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 953025DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF0D5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g92G2v218724; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g92G2sG18716; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g92G2sM10801; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:54 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Complex AS Path Aggregating Message-ID: <20021002120254.D28331@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB04@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB04@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>; from JNatale@celoxnetworks.com on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:40:30AM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:40:30AM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > The fact is that nobody does it (if anyone does do this, > please speak up), so I think is should be removed to reflect > current working code. This is one of those things that it doesn't hurt to leave it as is, even if no one currently does it. Someone *could* do it, and it should still be legal to do. > The test tested that the complex aggregation was done, it did not test > that complex aggregation could received gracefully; this > would be a useless test anyway, since no real world implementations do > complex aggregation. But if they did (and you could synthesize the packets easily enough), it should be able to be received gracefully. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25537 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:03:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 28827912CC; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E80A3912CD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF2C912CC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 327E85DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9475A5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:02:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92G2Jm45390; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:02:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021602.g92G2Jm45390@merlot.juniper.net> To: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8 In-Reply-To: Your message of "02 Oct 2002 08:56:17 PDT." <1033574178.27465.34.camel@riga> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7189.1033574539.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:02:19 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Justin, > > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > > 1.0. > > I'd suggest "uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.25" > to ensure the average is the configured interval. that would be fine too. yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25330 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7B25C912CE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4E7C6912CD; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D31912CC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A94745DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B585DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g92FxK718594; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g92FxFG18575; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g92FxF505649; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:15 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 8 Message-ID: <20021002115915.C28331@nexthop.com> References: <200210021549.g92FnYm44337@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210021549.g92FnYm44337@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:49:34AM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:49:34AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: This seems like a very good idea. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25319 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id C2C5C912CB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 92306912CC; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27023912CB for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 16F215DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A905DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92Fx6m44946; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021559.g92Fx6m44946@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: route to null0 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:53:04 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB05@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6166.1033574346.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 08:59:06 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > Yakov, > > Thanks! > > "A routing domain which performs summarization of multiple routes > must discard packets which match the summarization but do not match any > of the explicit routes which makes up the summarization." > > That covers it. > > I think adding a "[8]" (currently "[8]" is not explicitly cited anywhere) in > a strategic spot would be a good idea; I have seen this point missed by > some. It is cited in Introduction: BGP-4 provides a new set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [8, 9]. Yakov. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:27 AM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: route to null0 > > Jonathan, > > > If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated set of > > destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's routing > > table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one of the > > more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was > advertised > > to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate was > sent > > to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route that > > went away. > > > > I think the current draft stipulates that this should be handled by the > > speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or de-aggregating or > > something; there is no mention of the current working code's "null > solution" > > (as described above). > > See Section 4.2 RFC1519. > > Yakov. > > > > > > > > > Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x vs null0 ???). > > > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260 > > Content-Type: text/html > > > > <html> > > > > <head> > > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> > > > > > > <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> > > > > <style> > > <!-- > > /* Style Definitions */ > > p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal > > {margin:0in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > font-size:12.0pt; > > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > > h1 > > {margin-top:0in; > > margin-right:0in; > > margin-bottom:0in; > > margin-left:.5in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > text-indent:-.25in; > > page-break-after:avoid; > > font-size:16.0pt; > > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > > h2 > > {margin-top:0in; > > margin-right:0in; > > margin-bottom:0in; > > margin-left:.8in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > text-indent:-.3in; > > page-break-after:avoid; > > font-size:12.0pt; > > font-family:Arial;} > > a:link, span.MsoHyperlink > > {color:blue; > > text-decoration:underline;} > > a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed > > {color:purple; > > text-decoration:underline;} > > p.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, li.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, > div.StyleHeading > 1Arial12ptLeft > > {margin-top:0in; > > margin-right:0in; > > margin-bottom:0in; > > margin-left:.5in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > text-indent:-.25in; > > page-break-after:avoid; > > font-size:12.0pt; > > font-family:"Times New Roman"; > > font-weight:bold;} > > p.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, li.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, > div.StyleArial22 > ptBoldCentered > > {margin:0in; > > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > > text-align:center; > > font-size:20.0pt; > > font-family:Arial; > > font-weight:bold;} > > span.EmailStyle19 > > {font-family:Arial; > > color:windowtext;} > > @page Section1 > > {size:8.5in 11.0in; > > margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} > > div.Section1 > > {page:Section1;} > > /* List Definitions */ > > ol > > {margin-bottom:0in;} > > ul > > {margin-bottom:0in;} > > --> > > </style> > > > > </head> > > > > <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> > > > > <div class=Section1> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'>If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the > aggregated > > set of destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's > > routing table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event > that: > one > > of the more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was > > advertised to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the > aggregate > > was sent to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific > route > > that went away.</span></font></p> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'>I think the current draft stipulates that this should > be > > handled by the speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or > > de-aggregating or something; there is no mention of the current working > code' > s > > "null solution" (as described above).</span></font></p> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> > > > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > > font-family:Arial'>Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x > vs > > null0 ???).</span></font></p> > > > > </div> > > > > </body> > > > > </html> > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25209 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 258DD912CA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E2FD4912CB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF355912CA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DA2845DDBE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C1F5DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA64207; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:56:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210021556.LAA64207@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: issue 11.2 (was Re: Active Route) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:19:49 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFC@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:56:36 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFC@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > Folks, > > This issue seems to have been convoluted into issue 32.2. I am in agreement > with 32.2 (other than style/conciseness--I think it is a little long winded, > but I can live with it), but it is not what I raised. > > The issue I raised, and would like to be [re-]considered is with: > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers > (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only > those routes that it itself uses." That is called route orgination and it is allowed by: 9.4 Originating BGP routes A BGP speaker may originate BGP routes by injecting routing information acquired by some other means (e.g. via an IGP) into BGP. [...] The decision whether to distribute non-BGP acquired routes within an AS via BGP or not depends on the environment within the AS (e.g. type of IGP) and should be controlled via configuration. Advice on what to put in the AS_PATH and NEXT_HOP is in the document. > This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp route to a > destination but does not have bgp route to the same destination (for > example, based on administrative distance), then the speaker may not > advertise that route to it's peers. This is true on Juniper by default for > EBGP, but is NOT TRUE [ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on > Juniper if ~= "advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on > Cisco. [...] The decision whether to distribute non-BGP acquired routes within an AS via BGP or not depends on the environment within the AS (e.g. type of IGP) and should be controlled via configuration. > Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be completely removed. > This means that it will be allowable to advertise a route to a destination > that is not locally reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- > which is why it should not be removed) bad. > > Thank you. In the summary, one of the entries is incorrect: 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 ... Since this issue and issue 32.2 are very similar, and 32.2 is at consensus, this issue has also been moved to consensus in favor of 32.2. These are not the same so the entry in Andrews summary is wrong. We never reached full consensus on 11.2 but seemed to have more support for either 1) leaving it as, 2) take it out. There were some semantic arguments about what it meant to "use" a route with a few people offering an interpretation of "use" that would make the statement false under some conditions. I suggest that we change 11.2 and return it to "no consensus". The edit to change the same paragraph in 32.2 was to reflect the intent of the paragraph to indicate that BGP supports destination based routing and not some form of source specified routing. I don't think there was ever consensus on what to do with the statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses". Some reasonable choices are: 1. Omit it (the implied consensus of the rewrite of the paragraph in 32.2). 2. Leave it as is and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. 3. Clean up the wording and put it in another paragraph to separate it from the destination based routing statement. The separate paragraph for 2 would be the exact sentence we now have. A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. In possibility 3 we (try to) clear up the ambiguity about the meaning of the word "use" in this sentence. A BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. In this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is either directly used in forwarding or in a specifically configured case where the BGP route would be forwarded internally but IGP forwarding information is used. The latter case reflects a usage in which the IGP is used for forwarding but BGP is originated to IBGP to carry attributes that cannot be carried by the IGP (for example, BGP communities [N]). Other special cases such as virtual routers and multiple instances of BGP on a single router are beyond the scope of this document but for each of these the statement "a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses" can (and should in the definition of the extension) be made true with an appropriate definition of the word "use". Unless someone volunteers better wording this may be a good starting point. I thing the last sentence borders on ridiculous in a protocol spec but may be necessary to address specific objections raised on this mailing list. If we want to elaborate on the meaning of the word "use" and address the objections this is what we end up with. Of course looking at what we ended up with, I'd also go along with the other two options (leave it out or put the one sentence in a separate paragraph as is). Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25185 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 648C9912C8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 33EEA912CA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C40A912C8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 18C495DDBE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from earthquake.proficient.net (fe0-0-access-1-sfo.proficient.net [65.209.247.5]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35945DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riga ([10.0.0.25]) by earthquake.proficient.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:56:42 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 8 From: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200210021549.g92FnYm44337@merlot.juniper.net> References: <200210021549.g92FnYm44337@merlot.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-4) Date: 02 Oct 2002 08:56:17 -0700 Message-Id: <1033574178.27465.34.camel@riga> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2002 15:56:43.0082 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D7B32A0:01C26A2C] Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by > multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random > factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to > 1.0. I'd suggest "uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.25" to ensure the average is the configured interval. Justin Fletcher Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24962 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CC579912C7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 99A3B912C8; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29006912C7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 04FDE5DDBE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D155DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12R34>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:05 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB05@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: route to null0 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, Thanks! "A routing domain which performs summarization of multiple routes must discard packets which match the summarization but do not match any of the explicit routes which makes up the summarization." That covers it. I think adding a "[8]" (currently "[8]" is not explicitly cited anywhere) in a strategic spot would be a good idea; I have seen this point missed by some. -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:27 AM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: route to null0 Jonathan, > If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated set of > destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's routing > table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one of the > more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was advertised > to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate was sent > to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route that > went away. > > I think the current draft stipulates that this should be handled by the > speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or de-aggregating or > something; there is no mention of the current working code's "null solution" > (as described above). See Section 4.2 RFC1519. Yakov. > > > > Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x vs null0 ???). > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260 > Content-Type: text/html > > <html> > > <head> > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> > > > <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> > > <style> > <!-- > /* Style Definitions */ > p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal > {margin:0in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > h1 > {margin-top:0in; > margin-right:0in; > margin-bottom:0in; > margin-left:.5in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > text-indent:-.25in; > page-break-after:avoid; > font-size:16.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > h2 > {margin-top:0in; > margin-right:0in; > margin-bottom:0in; > margin-left:.8in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > text-indent:-.3in; > page-break-after:avoid; > font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:Arial;} > a:link, span.MsoHyperlink > {color:blue; > text-decoration:underline;} > a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed > {color:purple; > text-decoration:underline;} > p.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, li.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, div.StyleHeading 1Arial12ptLeft > {margin-top:0in; > margin-right:0in; > margin-bottom:0in; > margin-left:.5in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > text-indent:-.25in; > page-break-after:avoid; > font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman"; > font-weight:bold;} > p.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, li.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, div.StyleArial22 ptBoldCentered > {margin:0in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > text-align:center; > font-size:20.0pt; > font-family:Arial; > font-weight:bold;} > span.EmailStyle19 > {font-family:Arial; > color:windowtext;} > @page Section1 > {size:8.5in 11.0in; > margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} > div.Section1 > {page:Section1;} > /* List Definitions */ > ol > {margin-bottom:0in;} > ul > {margin-bottom:0in;} > --> > </style> > > </head> > > <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> > > <div class=Section1> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated > set of destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's > routing table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one > of the more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was > advertised to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate > was sent to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route > that went away.</span></font></p> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>I think the current draft stipulates that this should be > handled by the speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or > de-aggregating or something; there is no mention of the current working code' s > "null solution" (as described above).</span></font></p> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x vs > null0 ???).</span></font></p> > > </div> > > </body> > > </html> > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24804 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9F1BA912C6; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6E6F6912C7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A27C912C6 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 28D575DDBE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F205DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:49:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92FnYm44337 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:49:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021549.g92FnYm44337@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3264.1033573774.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 08:49:34 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, I'd like to propose the following text for "BGP Timers" section: BGP employs five timers: ConnectRetry (see Section 8), Hold Time (see Section 4.2), KeepAlive (see Section 8), MinASOriginationInterval (see Section 9.2.1.2), and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval (see Section 9.2.1.1). The suggested value for the ConnectRetry timer is 120 seconds. The suggested value for the Hold Time is 90 seconds. The suggested value for the KeepAlive timer is 1/3 of the Hold Time. The suggested value for the MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds. The suggested value for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the Hold Time timer to be configurable, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker shall apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter will not be applied on a "per peer" basis. Any objections ? Yakov. The amount of jitter to be introduced shall be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24373 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9269A912C4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5DB52912C5; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1926C912C4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 042295DDC1; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A1C5DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RM0>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:30 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB04@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Complex AS Path Aggregating Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk The fact is that nobody does it (if anyone does do this, please speak up), so I think is should be removed to reflect current working code. The test tested that the complex aggregation was done, it did not test that complex aggregation could received gracefully; this would be a useless test anyway, since no real world implementations do complex aggregation. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:10 AM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Complex AS Path Aggregating On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:06:25AM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: (2nd)putting ONLY the local > AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating 1 giant set and > adding the local AS as a seq. If vendors choose to implement the complex as path aggregation, thats fine. If they do simple, thats fine. Vendors should be able to receive and use either without problem. *That* is what the conformance tests should test. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24337 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B7100912C3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 887B3912C4; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC4D912C3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5C68C5DDBE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978E35DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11746; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03671; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7PDAV>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:26 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F0E@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be'" <hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be>, BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:39:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hans > So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a > BGP speaker > advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those routes > that it itself > uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route which in the FIB. > If the IGP route in the Routing Table and the IBGP route use the same next hop address, it is not broken. The only time I think its broken if the next hop address is different. What we say is broken is the gaurantee that the peer is told correctly the path the forwarding plane will work. Reachability could still be possible. But we know IP is not an exact science. Ben > --- > Hans de Vleeschouwer > > > "Martin, Christian" wrote: > > > Jonathan, > > > > > > > >"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > > >its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > > >neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." > > > > > >This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp > > >route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same > > >destination (for example, based on administrative distance), > > >then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. > > >This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE > > >[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= > > >"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. > > > > > >Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be > > >completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to > > >advertise a route to a destination that is not locally > > >reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which > > >is why it should not be removed) bad. > > > > This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper > interpreted the spec > > differently. As I see it, if the route is in the routing > table, you can > > announce it. To be more specific, and to your point > Jonathan, we should say > > this - or say the converse: > > > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path > > to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > > > Regards, > > -chris > > > > > > > >Thank you. > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23984 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A5347912C2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7497E912C3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483CB912C2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 182485DDBB; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45B35DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RLV>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:32:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB02@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Martin, Christian'" <cmartin@gnilink.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:32:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Christian, Thank you for replying. Your change would not cover the case, for example, where the speaker uses a static route that is not redistributed into bgp to reach a set of destinations that is also learned via bgp. I was thinking of: "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers only routes whose set of destinations are reachable per the local Routing Table." -----Original Message----- From: Martin, Christian [mailto:cmartin@gnilink.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:28 AM To: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Jonathan, > >"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in >neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." > >This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp >route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same >destination (for example, based on administrative distance), >then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. >This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE >[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= >"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. > >Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be >completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to >advertise a route to a destination that is not locally >reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which >is why it should not be removed) bad. This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper interpreted the spec differently. As I see it, if the route is in the routing table, you can announce it. To be more specific, and to your point Jonathan, we should say this - or say the converse: "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." Regards, -chris > >Thank you. > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23735 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 28353912C1; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BAF07912C3; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA81C912C1 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A89C15DDAA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB34D5DD93 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:27:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g92FRMm43026; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:27:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210021527.g92FRMm43026@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: route to null0 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:10:08 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB00@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <96916.1033572442.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 08:27:22 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated set of > destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's routing > table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one of the > more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was advertised > to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate was sent > to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route that > went away. > > I think the current draft stipulates that this should be handled by the > speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or de-aggregating or > something; there is no mention of the current working code's "null solution" > (as described above). See Section 4.2 RFC1519. Yakov. > > > > Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x vs null0 ???). > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260 > Content-Type: text/html > > <html> > > <head> > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> > > > <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> > > <style> > <!-- > /* Style Definitions */ > p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal > {margin:0in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > h1 > {margin-top:0in; > margin-right:0in; > margin-bottom:0in; > margin-left:.5in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > text-indent:-.25in; > page-break-after:avoid; > font-size:16.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > h2 > {margin-top:0in; > margin-right:0in; > margin-bottom:0in; > margin-left:.8in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > text-indent:-.3in; > page-break-after:avoid; > font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:Arial;} > a:link, span.MsoHyperlink > {color:blue; > text-decoration:underline;} > a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed > {color:purple; > text-decoration:underline;} > p.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, li.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, div.StyleHeading 1Arial12ptLeft > {margin-top:0in; > margin-right:0in; > margin-bottom:0in; > margin-left:.5in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > text-indent:-.25in; > page-break-after:avoid; > font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman"; > font-weight:bold;} > p.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, li.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, div.StyleArial22 ptBoldCentered > {margin:0in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > text-align:center; > font-size:20.0pt; > font-family:Arial; > font-weight:bold;} > span.EmailStyle19 > {font-family:Arial; > color:windowtext;} > @page Section1 > {size:8.5in 11.0in; > margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} > div.Section1 > {page:Section1;} > /* List Definitions */ > ol > {margin-bottom:0in;} > ul > {margin-bottom:0in;} > --> > </style> > > </head> > > <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> > > <div class=Section1> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated > set of destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's > routing table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one > of the more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was > advertised to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate > was sent to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route > that went away.</span></font></p> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>I think the current draft stipulates that this should be > handled by the speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or > de-aggregating or something; there is no mention of the current working code' s > "null solution" (as described above).</span></font></p> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> > > <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x vs > null0 ???).</span></font></p> > > </div> > > </body> > > </html> > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23682 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6A20D912C9; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2F603912CA; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CF5912C9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 29A4B5DDB7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mail.alcatel.be (alc250.alcatel.be [195.207.101.250]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C0E5DDAA for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:25:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (relay3 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alcatel.be (8.11.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g92FIa106627 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:18:36 +0200 Received: from alcatel.be ([138.203.191.116]) by Bemail06.net.alcatel.be (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2002100217250051:5946 ; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:25:00 +0200 Message-ID: <3D9B0FC8.E6049DE9@alcatel.be> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:24:56 +0200 From: hans.de_vleeschouwer@alcatel.be X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BGP mailing list <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: Active Route References: <94B9091E1149D411A45C00508BACEB35015F332D@entmail.gnilink.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/02/2002 17:25:00, Serialize by Router on BEMAIL06/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/02/2002 17:25:01, Serialize complete at 10/02/2002 17:25:01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I did not follow the whole discussion on this, however I am puzzeld with the following situation: I am acting as a transit AS. I receive routes via EBGP in an AS-border (router A) router of my AS. Then I redistribute the routes into IGP, and at the same time I forward the routes via IBGP (not full mesh) to all of the other AS border routers (but to no other routers). At the other side of my AS, I allow the border router (router B) to pass those routes learned via IBGP (form router A) to the (next) AS via an EBGP connection. (I am using the "synchronise BGP = TRUE" option.) Now in this fairly straightforward example, the router B will forward routes learned via IBGP to the next AS using EBGP, whereas for those routes the reachability in the FIB is taken care of by IGP (who has typically a higher preference in ther FIB then IBGP). So, in theory the rule : "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." is broken, since it is clearly an IGP route which in the FIB. --- Hans de Vleeschouwer "Martin, Christian" wrote: > Jonathan, > > > > >"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > >its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > >neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." > > > >This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp > >route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same > >destination (for example, based on administrative distance), > >then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. > >This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE > >[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= > >"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. > > > >Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be > >completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to > >advertise a route to a destination that is not locally > >reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which > >is why it should not be removed) bad. > > This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper interpreted the spec > differently. As I see it, if the route is in the routing table, you can > announce it. To be more specific, and to your point Jonathan, we should say > this - or say the converse: > > "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to > its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it > itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path > to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or > deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." > > Regards, > -chris > > > > >Thank you. > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22895 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CE193912BE; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3F45A912C0; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03729912BE for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E3C3C5DD9C; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C235DD93 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g92FA9w17021; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g92FA6G17014; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g92FA6Y29423; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:06 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Complex AS Path Aggregating Message-ID: <20021002111006.B28331@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFF@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFF@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>; from JNatale@celoxnetworks.com on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:06:25AM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:06:25AM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: (2nd)putting ONLY the local > AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating 1 giant set and > adding the local AS as a seq. If vendors choose to implement the complex as path aggregation, thats fine. If they do simple, thats fine. Vendors should be able to receive and use either without problem. *That* is what the conformance tests should test. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22875 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1586B9125E; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D1432912BF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE119125E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C022F5DD9C; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC675DD93 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12R2S>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:10 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFB00@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: route to null0 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:10:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260 Content-Type: text/plain If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated set of destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's routing table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one of the more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was advertised to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate was sent to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route that went away. I think the current draft stipulates that this should be handled by the speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or de-aggregating or something; there is no mention of the current working code's "null solution" (as described above). Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x vs null0 ???). ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260 Content-Type: text/html <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} h1 {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.25in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} h2 {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.8in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.3in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, li.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, div.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.25in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} p.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, li.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, div.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center; font-size:20.0pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold;} span.EmailStyle19 {font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>If a speaker aggregates a route, a route to the aggregated set of destinations with a next-hop of null is installed in the speaker's routing table. This is done to avoid a routing loop in the event that: one of the more specific routes goes away, the peer (that the aggregate was advertised to) advertised the default route, and the peer (that the aggregate was sent to) sends a pkt to the speaker destined for the more specific route that went away.</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>I think the current draft stipulates that this should be handled by the speaker withdrawing the more specific route and/or de-aggregating or something; there is no mention of the current working code's "null solution" (as described above).</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Not sure what Juniper does on this one (use 127.x.x.x vs null0 ???).</span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.CBF1A260-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22637 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:06:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 17C9A9125D; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DFB2A9125E; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA269125D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DC3475DD9C; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E92D5DD93 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RH0>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:06:26 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFF@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Complex AS Path Aggregating Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:06:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.46C36560" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.46C36560 Content-Type: text/plain This issue seems to have been lost, or maybe I never posted it. The part in the draft about complex AS path aggregation could/should be deleted. The current draft implies that when aggregating, for example (1st): 1 2 4 3 w/ 3 4 6 5 and 5 6 7 8 then 1 2 {3 4 5 6} 7 8 ...would be OK AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: (2nd)putting ONLY the local AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3rd)by creating 1 giant set and adding the local AS as a seq. 1 test equipment vendor went as far as to create such a test(for the 1st), which "FAILED". But if you read the draft carefully, clumping all the AS's into a set passes. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.46C36560 Content-Type: text/html <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} h1 {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.25in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} h2 {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.8in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.3in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, li.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, div.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.25in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} p.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, li.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, div.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center; font-size:20.0pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold;} span.EmailStyle19 {font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>This issue seems to have been lost, or maybe I never posted it.</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>The part in the draft about complex AS path aggregation could/should be deleted. The current draft implies that when aggregating, for example (1<sup>st</sup>):</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>1 2 4 3</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>w/</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>3 4 6 5</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>and</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>5 6 7 8</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>then</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>1 2 {3 4 5 6} 7 8</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>...would be OK</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>AFAIK, all implementations aggregate by either: (2<sup>nd</sup>)putting ONLY the local AS in the path (and setting the atomic) OR (3<sup>rd</sup>)by creating 1 giant set and adding the local AS as a seq.</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>1 test equipment vendor went as far as to create such a test(for the 1<sup>st</sup>), which "FAILED". But if you read the draft carefully, clumping all the AS's into a set passes.</span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C26A25.46C36560-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22224 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B849591252; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 85F6F9125D; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166DB91252 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 013215DDBF; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12B05DDBE for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RGN>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:57:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFE@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:57:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, I think this issue got lost. I thought we had a consensus on Changing it to a "MAY", "SHOULD" or some combination. I propose we remove/or relax: "Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP." Cisco (and I think Juniper as well), does aggregate routes with different MEDs and NEXT_HOPs, but *I think* Cisco is added, or added, a config switch for the MED. Old email thread: -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@laptoy770.fictitious.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:22 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Jonathan, Your point seems to be that the text could be modified since its under some conditions it is OK to aggregated MED and NH prior to export. I think it may be best if we leave the MED statement alone or only change it minimally since it can get you into trouble. Unless I'm missing something we can probably relax or eliminate the NH statement. See below for why. Curtis ps - sorry for the length of this. In message <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AF9CB@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > Currently routes with different meds can be aggregated. Bug > CSCds88309 requests a switch to stop this. I haven't read Cisco's bug report and Cisco behaviour and Cisco bug reports do not define the spec. If there is a good reason for the bug report (like doing so breaks something) then the circumstances and consequences of the breakage might be of interest to this list. > Any comments on the NEXT_HOP/aggregate issue? In both cases, the aggregation should not affect the route decision. MED is used in local route decisions. So if EBGP MED is configured to be ignored, you can get away with aggregation before export into IBGP. If MED is used just to pick the next hop, then it would be OK to aggregate then export to IBGP. In both of these cases, you could get route decision differences and a route loop if not all routers are configured the same. That is why the spec prohibits it. If EBGP MEDs and IBGP MEDs are compared, then aggregating before injecting into IBGP would alter the route decision so don't aggreagate. The one safe place to aggregate MED is export to EBGP peers as I indicated below. With next hop, you can aggregate all you want if you configure next-hop-self (the "unless" part of case 1 in "5.1.3 NEXT_HOP") because then the NH are the same. For EBGP, if you are not doing third party routes, the NH advertised to the peer are always identical so you can aggregate. Both of these cases fall under "its the same so aggregate". For what would otherwise be third party EBGP routes, you could get away with aggregating as long as you didn't mind forwarding out the same interface to what would have been the third party, and your peer isn't going to be upset (doesn't have a business reason to be upset) about you taking a third party route and putting it into an aggregate, thereby hiding it (can cause unintended, meaning "unpaid for" transit causing some upset peers at protocol level 8). There may be no harm done in aggregating different NH together except for the third party EBGP issue. Many protocol implementations allow you to just about aggregate anything before moving the routes into anything else. That was a goal of the gated "aggregate" protocol in the config (that was never fully acheived). In doing that you provide the user with flexibility but also the ability to do harmfull things and the ability to violate some protocol specs. That doesn't mean the specs should be changed to reflect that an implementation provides a means to violate it. In general certain things with BGP can get you into trouble but also could be done safely if consistently configured and done carefully enough. We used to refer to this as "among consenting adults" but didn't find a good way to word a general "among consenting adults" exception into the spec. It was easier to say "don't do that" for situations that usually got you into trouble. If we started enumerating cases in which certain restrictions could be ignored, in addition to bloating the document, we were also not entirely sure we'd cover all of the cases and get it exactly right. Under what circumstances MED and NEXT_HOP can be aggregated may be one such case were you could get into trouble and the best thing to say is "don't do that". Curtis > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@laptoy770.fictitious.org] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 11:37 PM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: > > > In message > <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AF976@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetwor > ks.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" writes: > > What is the purpose of: > > > > Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated > > unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: > > MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP. > > > > The major vendor has a bug/request to add a knob to do the > > MULTI_EXIT_DISC part (CSCds88309). The only reason for the second > > part I have heard has > to > > do with RPF (can't recall details). But basically I see no reason > > for > doing > > either part and I don't think any implementations do either anyway. > > > > I propose that the reason for these limits be added to the text or > > remove the text altogether. > > > > Also, is shall not == MUST??? > > > EBGP routes with MULTI_EXIT_DISC can't be aggregated before using the > route or injecting into IBGP since doing so could alter the decision. > > Routes with MED can be aggregated before export since the incoming MED > does not affect the value of the outgoing MED (if used the exported > MED is either configured or based on IGP cost). > > At worst the AS SET might be affected (in a subtly flawed > inplementation) but with AA being used almost exclusively this is a > complete non-issue (in practice). If properly implemented the > selection would preceed entry into the RIB and the aggregate formed in > the Adj-Rib_out would be based on those "best routes" in the RIB so > there would be no affect on AS SET. > > Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20736 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 189AD9124D; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:27:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DC6E39124F; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:27:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5439124D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B61595DDB2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from entmail.gnilink.net (entmail.gnilink.net [199.45.47.10]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B165DD9B for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by entmail.gnilink.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <TRPKQDKT>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:27:52 -0400 Message-ID: <94B9091E1149D411A45C00508BACEB35015F332D@entmail.gnilink.com> From: "Martin, Christian" <cmartin@gnilink.net> To: "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:27:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > >"one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to >its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in >neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." > >This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp >route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same >destination (for example, based on administrative distance), >then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. >This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE >[ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= >"advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. > >Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be >completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to >advertise a route to a destination that is not locally >reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which >is why it should not be removed) bad. This, IMO, is not the spirit of the rule. Juniper interpreted the spec differently. As I see it, if the route is in the routing table, you can announce it. To be more specific, and to your point Jonathan, we should say this - or say the converse: "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes learned via BGP that it itself uses. "Learned via BGP" means that a router's best path to a prefix is one that was either learned from a BGP peer, or deliberately injected into BGP by the local router." Regards, -chris > >Thank you. > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20326 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 719C191251; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 033039124F; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5ACF9124D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A6CFE5DDB2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AF85DD9B for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12RBL>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:19:50 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAFC@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Active Route Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:19:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, This issue seems to have been convoluted into issue 32.2. I am in agreement with 32.2 (other than style/conciseness--I think it is a little long winded, but I can live with it), but it is not what I raised. The issue I raised, and would like to be [re-]considered is with: "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." This means that if the speaker's routing table has a non-bgp route to a destination but does not have bgp route to the same destination (for example, based on administrative distance), then the speaker may not advertise that route to it's peers. This is true on Juniper by default for EBGP, but is NOT TRUE [ever?] on Juniper for IBGP, and is NOT TRUE on Juniper if ~= "advertise inactive" is enabled. This is NOT TRUE ever on Cisco. Now we are proposing that the quoted clause above be completely removed. This means that it will be allowable to advertise a route to a destination that is not locally reachable. This is obviously (to me, but not to all-- which is why it should not be removed) bad. Thank you. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20241 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:18:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CA94E9124E; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 922D39124D; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9D29124E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 37EFD5DDA2; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E735DD9B for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04518; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12335; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R737LQ>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:27 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F0D@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>, "'Dennis Ferguson'" <dennis@juniper.net>, Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@axiowave.com> Cc: "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Dennis: The assumption I made is AS-SET is not used at the aggregation point. Sorry, if I misled you on the first part. Thanks, Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Abarbanel, Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:06 AM > To: 'Dennis Ferguson'; Dimitry Haskin > Cc: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > > Dennis: > > The potential weakness to aggregation when AS-PATH list of component > routes > are left out of the aggregated route is that the downstream peers that > receive > the aggregate route have no knowledge of the real path taken > from their > point to the origin of any component route and thus are > unable to gaurantee > loop free routing from their point to any component route's > destination. > > In the multi-path scenario, if we aggregate two, same prefix, > different > AS-PATHS, different Next Hop, routes into one aggregate route > we hit this > weakness. Do you agree? > > My instinct is only to use multi-path in a localized manor, > load balance > between two interfaces from one router to another, if we must > load balance > between two interfaces to two separate routers, limit the amount of > divergence these routes define in their AS_PATH attributes. > Perhaps have 1 > router setup to multipath to 2 other routers in the same AS > whose AS_PATH > entries are the same. Once we start diverging, we get into > all kinds of > permutations on the AS_PATH issue, we have to use aggregation > or we have to > perform more policy decisions on how to deal with this, etc. > > Since BGP4 does not provide the ability to tell another peer > that two routes > which have the same prefix and different attributes are to be > treated as > multipath routes, we are stuck with information that is > advertised to peers > that is suboptimal. Perhaps this feature, should be added to > a new draft > titled "BGP Multipath" that you can edit, since you have vast > knowledge on > the subject. > > > Regards, > Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dennis Ferguson [mailto:dennis@juniper.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:20 PM > > To: Dimitry Haskin > > Cc: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu > > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > > > > Dimitry, > > > > > After all if a BGP speaker chooses to advertise a single > > route even when > > > multiple component routes are used for local forwarding, > > this in effect > > > constitutes an aggregation -- even if the aggregate and > > components have > > > the same prefix. As such, it should comply with aggregation > > rules that > > > have been defined to provide loop-free routing. > > > > I think the problem with this is the assertion that the > rules defined > > in the document for AS path aggregation (I'm looking at the > > -17 document) > > are necessary to provide loop-free routing in any case other > > than yours. > > Obtaining loop-free routing does not require combining AS > paths in any > > current situation, and because of this most routers, and > most users of > > routers, don't always do route aggregation as defined in > the document. > > > > In particular, if the aggregation is strictly mask-narrowing, > > that is all > > component routes of the aggregate have a more specific > prefix than the > > aggregate, then loop-free routing is guaranteed even if all > > the AS paths in > > the component routes are ignored and we just reset the > > aggregate route's > > AS path to nothing (you used to have to throw > > ATOMIC_AGGREGATE in there to > > make this strictly correct, but I understand even this is > > being deprecated). > > Doing the fancier thing may provide useful policy information > > for downstream > > route recipients, but providing or not providing that > > information is a choice > > for the aggregator which has no effect on the correctness of > > the protocol. > > Because of this most routers have a knob which tells them to > > not bother > > with the fancy aggregation of AS path information at all, and > > in fact many > > users get this done while avoiding any command mentioning > > "aggregate" by > > doing the same thing solely with readvertisement policy, > creating the > > aggregate route as a static with reject next hop and > > readvertising this > > while suppressing readvertisement of the matching > > more-specifics. None > > of this really conforms to the AS path aggregation rules in the > > specification, but all of it produces loop-free routing anyway. > > > > The exception to this occurs when one (or more) of the routes being > > aggregated is a prefix match for the aggregate route. While you can > > still ignore the AS paths on more specific routes in this > > case, guaranteeing > > loop freedom demands that the aggregate AS path include all > > the AS numbers > > in the path(s) of the matching prefix(es). Currently, > however, there > > is never more than one component route which is a prefix match for > > the aggregate, so for loop-free routing it is sufficient to > advertise > > the aggregate with the AS path of that route alone. You can do this > > solely with redistribution policy as well (readvertise the > route which > > is a prefix match, but suppress all the more-specifics), so > > again it is > > unnecessary to actually combine AS paths from multiple > routes for any > > loop-avoidance purposes. > > > > > I don't mind if the multi-path issues are kept out of the > > document. But > > > if there is insistence to provide some guidance, I hoped > > that a general > > > conceptual statement could be sufficient. > > > > What you describe is a reasonable way to do this function, > but I think > > the fact that it actually depends on the combination of > > component route > > AS paths into the aggregate route's AS path for the purpose > > of ensuring > > correct, loop-free routing, and that it can't be safely > > simulated by simple > > redistribution policy, makes it unique enough to require more > > explanation > > than just a conceptual statement. > > > > Dennis Ferguson > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19486 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CF7E29124B; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 90F089124D; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712B79124B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 41C4F5DDB7; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DD85DD93 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03767; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10058; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R736YR>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:17 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F0C@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Dennis Ferguson'" <dennis@juniper.net>, Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@axiowave.com> Cc: "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:06:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Dennis: The potential weakness to aggregation when AS-PATH list of component routes are left out of the aggregated route is that the downstream peers that receive the aggregate route have no knowledge of the real path taken from their point to the origin of any component route and thus are unable to gaurantee loop free routing from their point to any component route's destination. In the multi-path scenario, if we aggregate two, same prefix, different AS-PATHS, different Next Hop, routes into one aggregate route we hit this weakness. Do you agree? My instinct is only to use multi-path in a localized manor, load balance between two interfaces from one router to another, if we must load balance between two interfaces to two separate routers, limit the amount of divergence these routes define in their AS_PATH attributes. Perhaps have 1 router setup to multipath to 2 other routers in the same AS whose AS_PATH entries are the same. Once we start diverging, we get into all kinds of permutations on the AS_PATH issue, we have to use aggregation or we have to perform more policy decisions on how to deal with this, etc. Since BGP4 does not provide the ability to tell another peer that two routes which have the same prefix and different attributes are to be treated as multipath routes, we are stuck with information that is advertised to peers that is suboptimal. Perhaps this feature, should be added to a new draft titled "BGP Multipath" that you can edit, since you have vast knowledge on the subject. Regards, Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Ferguson [mailto:dennis@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:20 PM > To: Dimitry Haskin > Cc: 'Natale, Jonathan'; idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > Dimitry, > > > After all if a BGP speaker chooses to advertise a single > route even when > > multiple component routes are used for local forwarding, > this in effect > > constitutes an aggregation -- even if the aggregate and > components have > > the same prefix. As such, it should comply with aggregation > rules that > > have been defined to provide loop-free routing. > > I think the problem with this is the assertion that the rules defined > in the document for AS path aggregation (I'm looking at the > -17 document) > are necessary to provide loop-free routing in any case other > than yours. > Obtaining loop-free routing does not require combining AS paths in any > current situation, and because of this most routers, and most users of > routers, don't always do route aggregation as defined in the document. > > In particular, if the aggregation is strictly mask-narrowing, > that is all > component routes of the aggregate have a more specific prefix than the > aggregate, then loop-free routing is guaranteed even if all > the AS paths in > the component routes are ignored and we just reset the > aggregate route's > AS path to nothing (you used to have to throw > ATOMIC_AGGREGATE in there to > make this strictly correct, but I understand even this is > being deprecated). > Doing the fancier thing may provide useful policy information > for downstream > route recipients, but providing or not providing that > information is a choice > for the aggregator which has no effect on the correctness of > the protocol. > Because of this most routers have a knob which tells them to > not bother > with the fancy aggregation of AS path information at all, and > in fact many > users get this done while avoiding any command mentioning > "aggregate" by > doing the same thing solely with readvertisement policy, creating the > aggregate route as a static with reject next hop and > readvertising this > while suppressing readvertisement of the matching > more-specifics. None > of this really conforms to the AS path aggregation rules in the > specification, but all of it produces loop-free routing anyway. > > The exception to this occurs when one (or more) of the routes being > aggregated is a prefix match for the aggregate route. While you can > still ignore the AS paths on more specific routes in this > case, guaranteeing > loop freedom demands that the aggregate AS path include all > the AS numbers > in the path(s) of the matching prefix(es). Currently, however, there > is never more than one component route which is a prefix match for > the aggregate, so for loop-free routing it is sufficient to advertise > the aggregate with the AS path of that route alone. You can do this > solely with redistribution policy as well (readvertise the route which > is a prefix match, but suppress all the more-specifics), so > again it is > unnecessary to actually combine AS paths from multiple routes for any > loop-avoidance purposes. > > > I don't mind if the multi-path issues are kept out of the > document. But > > if there is insistence to provide some guidance, I hoped > that a general > > conceptual statement could be sufficient. > > What you describe is a reasonable way to do this function, but I think > the fact that it actually depends on the combination of > component route > AS paths into the aggregate route's AS path for the purpose > of ensuring > correct, loop-free routing, and that it can't be safely > simulated by simple > redistribution policy, makes it unique enough to require more > explanation > than just a conceptual statement. > > Dennis Ferguson > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA21788 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 71C88912BD; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4ADE49123F; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EF591232 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:20:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D2FCA5DE9D; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:20:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449C25DE9A for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:20:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (wawa.juniper.net [172.17.20.55]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g923Jom15848; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:19:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dennis@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210020319.g923Jom15848@merlot.juniper.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: lists/idr To: "Dimitry Haskin" <dhaskin@axiowave.com> Cc: "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:05:35 EDT." <001e01c26964$63c3fd30$01ffff0a@QUICK> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 20:19:50 -0700 From: Dennis Ferguson <dennis@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Dimitry, > After all if a BGP speaker chooses to advertise a single route even when > multiple component routes are used for local forwarding, this in effect > constitutes an aggregation -- even if the aggregate and components have > the same prefix. As such, it should comply with aggregation rules that > have been defined to provide loop-free routing. I think the problem with this is the assertion that the rules defined in the document for AS path aggregation (I'm looking at the -17 document) are necessary to provide loop-free routing in any case other than yours. Obtaining loop-free routing does not require combining AS paths in any current situation, and because of this most routers, and most users of routers, don't always do route aggregation as defined in the document. In particular, if the aggregation is strictly mask-narrowing, that is all component routes of the aggregate have a more specific prefix than the aggregate, then loop-free routing is guaranteed even if all the AS paths in the component routes are ignored and we just reset the aggregate route's AS path to nothing (you used to have to throw ATOMIC_AGGREGATE in there to make this strictly correct, but I understand even this is being deprecated). Doing the fancier thing may provide useful policy information for downstream route recipients, but providing or not providing that information is a choice for the aggregator which has no effect on the correctness of the protocol. Because of this most routers have a knob which tells them to not bother with the fancy aggregation of AS path information at all, and in fact many users get this done while avoiding any command mentioning "aggregate" by doing the same thing solely with readvertisement policy, creating the aggregate route as a static with reject next hop and readvertising this while suppressing readvertisement of the matching more-specifics. None of this really conforms to the AS path aggregation rules in the specification, but all of it produces loop-free routing anyway. The exception to this occurs when one (or more) of the routes being aggregated is a prefix match for the aggregate route. While you can still ignore the AS paths on more specific routes in this case, guaranteeing loop freedom demands that the aggregate AS path include all the AS numbers in the path(s) of the matching prefix(es). Currently, however, there is never more than one component route which is a prefix match for the aggregate, so for loop-free routing it is sufficient to advertise the aggregate with the AS path of that route alone. You can do this solely with redistribution policy as well (readvertise the route which is a prefix match, but suppress all the more-specifics), so again it is unnecessary to actually combine AS paths from multiple routes for any loop-avoidance purposes. > I don't mind if the multi-path issues are kept out of the document. But > if there is insistence to provide some guidance, I hoped that a general > conceptual statement could be sufficient. What you describe is a reasonable way to do this function, but I think the fact that it actually depends on the combination of component route AS paths into the aggregate route's AS path for the purpose of ensuring correct, loop-free routing, and that it can't be safely simulated by simple redistribution policy, makes it unique enough to require more explanation than just a conceptual statement. Dennis Ferguson Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19059 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 52F1A91230; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1CC6B912B9; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF60D91230 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 974235DE8C; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFDD5DE0D for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA55112; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:12:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210020212.WAA55112@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com> Cc: "Stephen Gill" <gillsr@yahoo.com>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:05:10 PDT." <20021001180510.23D517E6C1@popserv3.redback.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 22:12:02 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <20021001180510.23D517E6C1@popserv3.redback.com>, Enke Chen writes: > Steve, > > > From: "Stephen Gill" <gillsr@yahoo.com> > > To: "'Enke Chen'" <enke@redback.com>, > > "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> > > Cc: <idr@merit.edu> > > Subject: RE: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:01:04 -0500 > > > > Humm. I thought with a missing MED it was prefereable to be treated as > > worst not as 0. > > It was changed a long time ago. Please see the following text in > Sect. 9.1.2.2 of the draft: > > In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the > value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest > possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. > > -- Enke > > > Cisco treats a missing med as 0, and I think Juniper > > treats it as worst. Cisco has a knob to change this: bgp bestpath > > missing-as-worst. > > > > -- steve If Juniper treats missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC as worst and Cisco has a knob to treat missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC as worst, then IMHO we should change the spec to say that MED(n) returns the largest value possible is MULTI_EXIT_DISC is missing since this has better loop suppression bahaviour if the placement of MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal is moved in its position in the flow from Adj-In-RIB to Loc-RIB to Adj-Rib-Out. In other words, no matter where the removal takes place, we are loop free without special rules about comparing EBGP before MED removal and then IBGP after MED removal. The only argument for MED(n) going to zero for missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC was that Cisco routers did that (and change would pose an operational issue if there wasn't a knob to facilitate the change). Note that when explicitly jamming a MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, such as zero, the issue of where in the decision process the MULTI_EXIT_DISC learned from the EBGP peers could still be used becomes a concern again. Unfortunately these implementation hints are necessary to remain loop free and so its hard to declare them out of scope, unless we forbid changing MULTI_EXIT_DISC and just allow it to be removed (which does not reflect current practice). Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA15978 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1CD8F91231; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D4BA5912B9; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:50:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6B491231 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 238AB5DE7E; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79535DE7D for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA54081; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:50:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210020050.UAA54081@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: idr@merit.edu Cc: curtis@fictitious.org Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: was Re: issue 32.2 Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 20:50:16 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov asked my to repost my private reply to him presumably since my name is in the middle somewhere proposing text but I think that the final text proposed by Yakov is fine. I also suggested that silence since Yakov's suggestion was made may indicate consensus. (I hope). Curtis ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: yakov@juniper.net Delivery-Date: Tue Oct 1 13:35:06 2002 Return-Path: <yakov@juniper.net> Received: from localhost (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA50252 for <curtis@localhost>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from gateway2.fictitious.org [209.150.1.252] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.5.1) for curtis@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by gateway2.fictitious.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8UGri893246 for <curtis@fictitious.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:53:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g8UGqVm44877 for <curtis@fictitious.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:52:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200209301652.g8UGqVm44877@merlot.juniper.net> To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 32.2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:42:15 EDT." <200209301442.KAA31171@workhorse.fictitious.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <92326.1033404751.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:52:31 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> X-UIDL: ;2_"!*k(!!!T5"!Z8+"! Curtis, > > > > 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > > - > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: Proposal to clarify BGP's support for the destination-based > > forwarding paradigm. There seems to be consensus that some sort of > > updated text is good, but there is not yet consensus on which text > > that should be. > > > > Discussion: > > > > In response to these proposals, Yakov proposed that the real problem is t ha > > t > > it is not clear that BGP is build to support the destination-based > > forwarding paradigm. To fix this, it was propsed that: > > > > <OLD> > > > > To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced > > using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises > > to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > > neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule > > reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used > > throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot > > be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus > > require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) > > to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send > > traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a > > different route from that taken by traffic originating in the > > neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy > > conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the > > current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing > > paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to > > that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing > > protocol for the current Internet. > > > > <NEW> > > > > Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a > > router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address > > carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects > > the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced > > using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques > > such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such > > policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP > > does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS > > intending that the traffic take a different route from that > > taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the > > other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm. > > > > Curtis thinks the newer text here is more clear. > > > > In reponse to the new text, Christian Martin propsed a slightly different > > new text: > > > > Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a > > router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address > > carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects > > the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces > > using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques > > such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such > > policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP > > does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS > > based on prefixes originating from the local AS. On the > > other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm. > > > > To which Yakov replied: > > > > Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a > > router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address > > carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects > > the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces > > using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques > > such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such > > policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, > > BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring > > AS to some destination (which is outside of the neighboring > > AS, but is reachable through the neighboring AS) intending that > > the traffic take a different route from that taken by the traffic > > to the same destination that originating in the neighboring AS. > > On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to > > the destination-based forwarding paradigm. > > > > And Chris reponsed: > > > > Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a > > router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address > > carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects > > the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces > > using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques > > such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such > > policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, > > BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring > > AS to some destination beyond the neighboring AS intending that > > the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic > > to the same destination which originates in the neighboring AS. > > In other words, the BGP policy of a local AS cannot affect the > > downstream (aka, away from the local AS) forwarding policy of a > > remote AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conformin > > g > > to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. > > > > Tom Petch prefered Yakov's second formulation, with these changes: > > > > policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, > > BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic > > ! to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable > > through but) beyond > > ! that neighboring AS intending that > > ! the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic > > ! originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). > > > > On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to > > the destination-based forwarding paradigm. > > > > Yakov agreed to Tom's suggested changes. > > > > I would suggest we change the status of this item to Consensus > > and indicate that the following paragraph > > > > To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced > > using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises > > to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in > > neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule > > reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used > > throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot > > be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus > > require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) > > to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send > > traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a > > different route from that taken by traffic originating in the > > neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy > > conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the > > current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing > > paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to > > that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing > > protocol for the current Internet. > > > > > > will be replaced in -18 with the following text: > > > > Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a > > router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address > > carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects > > the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced > > using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the > > destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques > > such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to be enforced*. > > Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, > > BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS > > for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond > > that neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different > > route to that taken by the traffic originating in the neighboring > > AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can > > support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding > > paradigm. > > > > Yakov. > > > > > Looks good to me. If silence supposed to imply agreement, we seem to > have consensus. Could you please repost it to the IDR mailing list. Thanks !!! Yakov. ------- End of Forwarded Message Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA14999 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3504C912B5; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id F2967912B9; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99926912B5 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8285F5DE78; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709425DE7B for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA53715; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:24:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210020024.UAA53715@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 11 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:42:55 PDT." <154255622085.20021001094255@psg.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 20:24:46 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <154255622085.20021001094255@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes: > Yakov, > > >> It would be smarter to assign the next hop address to a virtual > >> interface (e.g. Loopback Interface address) thus if the peer has two > >> physical interfaces to current router, there is only one route. > >> Thus the load balancing issue is transparent to the BGP routing > >> and only obvious in the forwarding plane. > > > And if it is transparent to the BGP routing, then there is no > > need to have it in the base spec. Agreed ? > > Note that what Ben described above is not BGP multipath, but > load-balancing based on IGP multipath, and right, _this_ one doesn't > belong in the spec. > > Alex Alex, In addition to IGP multihop, there are two cases of BGP multipath. In IGP multihop there is one BGP advertisement but to ways to reach th BGP NEXT_HOP via the IGP. In one case of BGP multihop, two (or more) IBGP routers peering with the same external AS have equal routes to a destination and are an equal cost away from a third router. BGP multihop is applicable to that third router. Without BGP multihop, BGP would normally pick the BGP NEXT_HOP of the advertisement from only one of those IBGP peers (using BGP Identifier) and use that. The IGP lookup would yield one next hop. With BGP multihop, BGP uses the BGP NEXT_HOP of both advertisements. Each BGP NEXT_HOP has a different IGP next hop (one or more IGP next hop). The second case is where all of the candidates routes for BGP multipath are external. Seldom does IGP multipath come into play for EBGP (odd tunneled EBGP mutlihop cases maybe). Typically the load is split among two (or more) routers in the same AS. If in EBGP multipath you split among routers in difference AS, an aggregate should be formed. This is still prior to the IGP cost rule in the route selection. Normally one would not combine IBGP and EBGP in multihop given that the decsion point for multihop is after "d" in 9.1.2.2. If the multihop decision was prior to "d", then two routers each with an external peering would forward some of the traffic to each other and for some src/dst pairs, they'd form a loop. [So don't do that!] This is getting to be a lot to add to the base spec. I hope we've convinced you that we should put it in another document. Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA12981 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 78E53912BA; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:37:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 345A9912C2; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:37:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8A5912BA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 64BD75DE78; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6695DE30 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:36:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA53015; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:36:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210012336.TAA53015@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 11 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:20:34 PDT." <138175081333.20020930112034@psg.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:36:25 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <138175081333.20020930112034@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes: > Yakov, > > [...] > >> Multipath is > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing protocol. There > >> should be a good reason to want something like this in a separate > >> document. Do we have one in this case? > > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec completed within > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add > > substantial new material to the spec. > > I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be quite important > from the perspective of interoperability and description of further > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right people together > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute to buying > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff > within a month? > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > Alex Alex, Two prior issues were use of "shortest AS path" and a detail of "MED handling". The former is in there, the latter is still a little deficient. The prior issue was inclusion of "shortest AS path" which wasn't in earlier BGP-4 but Cisco has always done. It is now in there. It reflects what Cisco does. Everyone else seems to have a "Cisco BGP compatibility" knob to enable it (typically enabled by default). The other issue was MED handling. In "5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC": A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). This doesn't sufficiently address the issue. The MED step in the decision process is (in 9.1.2.2): c) Remove from consideration routes with less-preferred MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes. MULTI_EXIT_DISC is only comparable between routes learned from the same neighboring AS. Routes which do not have the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute are considered to have the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value. This is also described in the following procedure: for m = all routes still under consideration for n = all routes still under consideration if (neighborAS(m) == neighborAS(n)) and (MED(n) < MED(m)) remove route m from consideration In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. The problem is that a route loop can be formed. To avoid the route loop, two suggestions were made (2-3 years ago and nothing was done). One was to make MED(n) return infinity if there was no MULTI_EXIT_DISC. The other was to consider MULTI_EXIT_DISC in the decision process only for the purpose of selecting among the EBGP peers, then remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC, then use that best route in comparisons to IBGP learned routes. The statement in 5.1.4 "This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2)" does not sufficiently address this. This implies that you MAY also remove after route selection, in which case field experience indicates you WILL get burned (unless you know about the caveat above). Initially this came up as an interoperability issue but later it was proven (in the field) that a Cisco and another Cisco could form a route loop until Cisco made this change. Additional wording is needed either in 5.1.4 or in 9.1.2.2. I suggest we put a forward reference in 5.1.4: [...]. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). See section 9.1.2.2 for necessary restricts on this. Then in 9.1.2.2 add a clarificatio to the neighborAS(n) function and add to the existing text. Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function which returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route, not the internal AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before redistributing a route into IBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes, them removed, then the remaining EBGP learned route may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC will be dropped before advertising to IBGP. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP learned route in the comparison with an IBGP learned route, then dropping the MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops. The loop is the classic I prefer your and you prefer mine problem. It occurs when the router is configured to remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC and advertise out a route so other routers can use IGP cost to select the best route. If two routers do this, as soon as they hear the route with no MULTI_EXIT_DISC from the other peer they start forwarding toward that peer but they continue to advertise to it since others IBPG peers are expected to select among the MULTI_EXIT_DISC free IBGP learned routes using the next step in the decision process, IGP cost. In this case, what you want is each router to prefer its own EBGP route, even though it has a MULTI_EXIT_DISC and the IBGP learned route from the same neighbor AS has had its MULTI_EXIT_DISC stripped off (or didn't have one, you can't tell which it is). You then want all of the IBGP peers with a MULTI_EXIT_DISC free route from that AS, or that have stripped the MULTI_EXIT_DISC to form one, to advertise them. Others in the AS will then use IGP cost to further resolve which exit point to use. It make a difference when the route is the aggregate route of another major provider. IGP cost yields what ISPs call "hot potatoe routing" and MED selects among multiple heavily loaded provider interconnects. [Aside: Having a missing MULTI_EXIT_DISC default to infinity would do exactly what the ISPs want it to do in the first place and be a lot easier to explain but we didn't fix that 2-3 years ago when the issue came up even though we had WG consensus that it was the right thing to do. The authors didn't act on it at the time (because Cisco didn't do it that way and the authors preferred to sit on the draft). At this point we might as well adequately document what we ended up with.... End of soapbox. I don't take myself all that seriously so others shouldn't either. :-)] Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA12402 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 04396912AA; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A3677912AB; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10288912AA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DF6D65DE74; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867655DD93 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA00568; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:20:54 -0700 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: idr@merit.edu Cc: andrewl@cw.net Subject: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v1.2 Message-ID: <20021001162054.D27298@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hello all, Attached is the updated Issue List, and a Changelog. To summarize the changes we have: Added 3 issues, updated 34 and brought 18 issues to consensus. We're close to consensus on a couple of others too. Andrew --PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue_List-v1.2.txt" 2002-10-01 v1.2 Since late August 2002, there has been a push to get any and all issues with the base spec. resolved so the IDR group can move this draft forward to the IESG. This is a list of the issues that have been brought up regarding the base draft, and the current working group consensus on them. All mistakes are mine, please email me at andrewl@cw.net with corrections. Please include the number and the title of the issue in the subject lines of email discussing that issue. It will help in keeping track. N.B. There is no rhyme or reason to the numbering scheme other than unique tags to address the issues. ============================================================================ Table of Contents ============================================================================ 1) IDR WG Charter 2) TCP Port 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID 5) Direct EBGP Peers 6) Disallow Private Addresses 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 12) TCP Behavior Wording 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer 15) Grammer Fix 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 18) IP Layer Fragmentation 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 34) Timer & Counter Definition 35) Fix Typo 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers 42) Delete the FSM Section 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 49) Explicity Define Event Generation 50) FSM Timers 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes ============================================================================ Issues with Consensus ============================================================================ 1) IDR WG Charter 2) TCP Port 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in 5) Direct EBGP Peers 6) Disallow Private Addresses 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 12) TCP Behavior Wording 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer (closed in favor of issue 61) 15) Grammer Fix 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 35) Fix Typo 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 42) Delete the FSM Section 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 50) FSM Timers 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) IDR WG Charter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: New charter adopted. Discussion: A variety of discussions surrounded the new charter. The rough consensus is to accept the new charter that the AD's have proposed, and to push as hard a possible to get the base spec to RFC status so other drafts that are dependent can also move forward. This thread has messages subjects of "BGP spec and IDR WG charter" and "IDR WG charter". For our information, Alex has provided these aproximate timelines: Stage Anticipated delay Comment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD-review 1--4 weeks The document may go back to the depending on workload WG for the AD-review comments to be addressed; this would introduce additional delay. IETF LC 2 weeks Same as above IESG review& 1--2 weeks depending Same as above telechat on when the IETF LC ends ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that if the document is sent back to the WG at some stage, required changes may warrant an additional WG Last Call. I can personally commit to a 2-week upper bound for the AD-review period. Bill may have a different timer granularity. The opinions expressed on this were 7 in favor, 4 against. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) TCP Port ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change: "BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections." To: "BGP listens on TCP port 179." Discussion: There has been a discussion on clarifying the wording in Section 2, on which port BGP uses. The original text was: "BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections." The proposed new text is: "BGP listens on TCP port 179." There seems to be a rough consensus that the new text is better. This thread has a message subject of "Review: Section 2, TCP Port 179" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) FSM wording for what state BGP accepts connections in ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary Discussion: An issue was brought up later in the "Review: Section 2, TCP Port 179" thread about the words in the FSM for what state BGP accepts connections in. The consensus is that the existing wording is clear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) BGP Identifier/Router ID ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary to base draft. Perhaps in a BCP. Discussion: The "admin dist/gp spec proposal", "Router ID" and "bgp spec proposal" threads discussed the BGP Identifier and how close or not it is to IGP's Router ID. The consensus was that this discussion is better saved for a BCP draft, and that it does not need to be contained in the base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Direct EBGP Peers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: A recollection that ebgp peers must be direct. No text proposed, no discussion. Discussion: Jonathan recalled something that stated that ebgp peers must be direct. No specific sections were quoted. Yakov responded to this with: Section 5.1.3 talks about both the case where ebgp peers are 1 IP hop away from each other: 2) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is one IP hop away from the speaker: as well as the case where they are multiple IP hops away from each other: 3) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is multiple IP hops away from the speaker (aka "multihop EBGP"): And emphasized that multihop EBGP does exist. This came up in the "bgp draft review" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Disallow Private Addresses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No change necessary Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": Mentioned explicitly disallowing private addresses. The consensus was that there is no reason to disallow them. Which IP addresses peers use is an operational issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Renumber Appendix Sections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Rename/renumber appendix sections so they do not have the same numbers as sections of the main text. Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": This thread brought up renaming sections in the appendix to avoid confusion with sections of the same number in the main text. Yakov responded that he would do so in the next edition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Jitter Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus on the change, but we still need the text Change: Potentially Summary: Get rid of section 9.2.1.3 ("Jitter"). Move the text to an Appendix: "BGP Timers" Expand text to indicate that jitter applies to all timers, including ConnectRetry. We still need specific text for the Appendix. Discussion: In the tread entitled "bgp draft review": The thread also proposed: "jitter should be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, Keepalive, and MinRouteAdvertisementInterval" Be changed to: "jitter should be applied to the timers associated with ConnectRetry timer" Yakov agreed with making some changes and suggested that we make sure that jitter is applied to all timers. Specifically, he proposes we get rid of section 9.2.1.3 ("Jitter"), move the text of this section into Appendix "BGP Timers", and expand the text to indicate that jitter applies to ConnectRetry timer as well. Jonathan, the original commentor, agreed with Yakov's suggestion. In a follow-up to this issue, there was a question raised about the values we have specified for timers in the document. Specifically: The ConnectRetry timer is should have a value that is 'sufficiently large to allow TCP initialization. Application of jitter can reduce the this value (by up to 25%). A configuration which the ConnectRetry timer has been pegged at a value close to TCP connection time may cause a connection to be terminated as a result of this jitter. Is this a cause for concern ? The default value suggested for ConnectRetry (120 seconds) is sufficiently large that event with a jitter of 0.75, it will be greater than TCP'c connection establishment timer. Is adding a jitter to the ConnectRetry timer a standard practice ? What benefit does this provide ? Curtis responded to this with: The TCP connection establishment timer is 75 seconds (sysctl yield "net.inet.tcp.keepinit: 75000" in BSD-oids). The ConnectRetry determines when to make a second attempt after a prior attempt to connect has failed. It is to avoid a rapid succession of retries on immediate failures (for example "Connection refused" if the peer was in the middle of a reboot, Network Unreachable if you can't get there from here, etc) but also covers the case where the TCP SYN goes off and is never heard from again. And Jonathan replied with this information about current practice: It seems to me that if you bring up all bgp peers at once it may lead to load spikes on the network. Cisco seems to wait 27.5 +/- 2.5 seconds for IBGP, and 40 +/- 5 seconds for EBGP--20 sec. from config time to the "open active, delay" jittered delay assignment plus the jittered delay (5 to 10 sec. for IBGP, and 15 to 25 sec. for EBGP). This would also apply for "no neighbor x.x.x.x shutdown". Their value of ConnectRetry is 60sec. though, not sure how this value is used (based on above). Maybe some Cisco folks can chime in on this one??? I did not check Juniper. Also, interestingly, they do not apply jitter to the other timers (as far as I can tell), but I don't see a problem with this. Another timer that they use that is not mentioned in the draft/rfc is the next hop resolution timer which is 30 seconds. Although it would be nice to have this in the spec, I will concede that it is out of scope and/or implementation dependent. So the question that arises from this followup, is how does this question affect the text of the appendix on jitter? Curtis replied that we need to only state that jitter should be applied to all timers. Whether a vendor does so or not is a minor deficiency and does not bear on interoperability. Therefore, specifying exact details are not necessary. After Jonathan's response Curtis and Jonathan agreed that jitter should be added to all timers and that we should state so in the text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add a reference to RFC904 Discussion: The "Review Comment: Origin Attribute pg 14" thread suggested adding a reference to RFC904(?), to refer to the EGP protocol. There was no discussion. Yakov agreed to this, and Jonathan seconded it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Add this to 9.2: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker may choose not to advertise the route to its peers. Discussion: The "Extending AS_PATH attribute length en route" thread brought up the issue of what action should we specify when we receive a route with an AS_PATH that exceeds the defined maximum length. There was some discussion, and it was suggested that, after logging the error, the route not be propegated. Yakov stated that: The real issue here is how to handle the case when a route (a single address prefix + path attributes) doesn't fit into 4K bytes (as the max BGP message size is 4 K). To address this issue I would suggest to add the following to 9.2: After some discussion, Yakov's proposed text's last sentance was dropped and we arrived at: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker may choose not to advertise the route to its peers. In response to Andrew's clarification question to the list, Curtis responded: Wording would be more like: If the attributes for a specific prefix becomes too large to fit the prefix into the maximum sized BGP UPDATE message, the prefix should not be advertised further. Truncation or ommision of attributes should not occur unless policies for such modifications are specifically configured. Such policies may contribute to the formation of route loops and are not within the scope of this protocol specification. After some additional discussion, it was decided that we add "and may choose to log an error locally." to the end of Yakov's text. Also, we agreed to change "may choose not to advertize..." to "MUST NOT advertise...". So the text on the table right now is: If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and may choose to log an error locally. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Variety of texts proposed to help clear up the rules for moving routes from Loc-RIB into Adj-RIB-Out. Discussion: The "Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3" thread brought up some lack of clarity in the section discussing the rules for which routes get propegated from the Loc-RIB into the Adj-RIB-Out. These discussions resulted in a number of suggestions for new text. The first new text was proposed to clarify the issue that the thread first brought up: I agree that this could use some clarification. How about adding to b) in section 9.1: The Loc-RIB must contain only one route per destination; further, it must include all routes that the BGP speaker is using. changing c) in section 9.1.2 to: c) is selected as a result of the Phase 2 tie breaking rules specified in 9.1.2.2, or and adding d) when routing protocols other than BGP are in use, is determined by some other local means to be the route that will actually be used to reach a particular destination. This text was never discussed or a consensus formed on putting it in the document. This modification to 9.1.2 was also proposed to address the same concern: How about changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 to: The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. This route SHALL then also be installed in the BGP speakers forwarding table. There was one response in the negative to this change, arguing that is is not necessary. Yakov replied to this that: Wrt "adding to b) in section 9.1", the second part (after ";") is redundant as this point is already stated in 3.2. Wrt the first point about Loc-RIB containing just one route per destination, I would suggest to add it to section 3.2, where Loc-RIB is first introduced, rather than adding it to 9.1. Wrt "changing c)... and adding...", I have no objections to add/modify the text, as suggested above. I am not sure though that changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 is really necessary though, so I would prefer to keep it as is. The "issue 11" thread this was being discussed in then digressed to the topic, now covered in issue 11.3. Ben readdressed the original issue with this input: I have somewhat of an issue with the paragraph after item c section 9.1.2 as discussed. which is => "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. If the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table (as a result of the local policy decision), care must be taken to ensure that invalid BGP routes to the same destination are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new route replaces an already existing non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker." Can we assume that its OK to have a route present in the Loc-RIB and possibly in the adj-RIB-Out but not in the Routing table due to some policy. Won't we violate rule number 1? Only advertise what you use. As conversly implied in this sentence => "If the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table (as a result of the local policy decision), care must be taken to ensure that invalid BGP routes to the same destination are removed from the Routing Table" I would rephrase the paragraph as follows => "The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. When the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to the same destination that are now considered invalid are removed from the Routing Table. Whether or not the new BGP route replaces an existing non-BGP route in the routing table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker." Ben's comment has not yet received a reponse. We are still working on consensus on this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Variety of texts proposed to help clear up the rules for moving routes from Loc-RIB into Adj-RIB-Out. Discussion: In further discussions around this issue, this text was also proposed: How about adding to section 9.1.3, at the end: Any local-policy which results in reachability being added to an Adj-RIB-Out without also being added to the local BGP speaker's forwarding table is beyond the scope of this document. This suggestion received one response that agreed to this change. This text will be added to the -18 version, and since there were no objections, this issue has been moved to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: This issue has been folded into issue 32.2. Please see that text for more information. Discussion: Additionally this thread produced this section of new text, in section 2: <OLD> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses." Should be changed to <NEW #1> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only routes whose NLRIs are locally reachable." <NEW #2> "one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only routes which are locally reachable. Local reachability can be achieved by having any protocol route to the given destination in the routing table." There was no consensus on which text we ought to use, or if any change is necessary. Since this issue and issue 32.2 are very similar, and 32.2 is at consensus, this issue has also been moved to consensus in favor of 32.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: The documenting of IBGP Multipath is left to another Internet Draft. The consensus is that it should not be in the base spec. However, we are reconsiderting this at the moment. Discussion: This thread began in the "issue 11" discussion. In it it was proposed that: There is support in some router vendors to allow more than one BGP route to be installed, for the purpose for load balancing. Given that this is a current practice, and seems to be a useful feature as well, should we insist that only one route be installed in the Loc-RIB ? I would like to suggest that all sections which use MUST in the context of only one route in Loc-RIB be relaxed a little to a SHOULD, and a section added that states that it is possible for a n implementation to add more than one route to the Loc-RIB for the purposes of load balancing. While it will be useful to describe how this situation is the handler, it is perhaps sufficient to even state that handling of this situation is outside the scope of this RFC. I am including some proposed text for this purpose: For the part: > The Loc-RIB must contain only one route per destination; consider instead, % The Loc-RIB SHOULD contain only one route per destination. % An implementation may choose to install multiple routes to % a destination (for the purposes of load balancing). The % handling of such a configuration, however, is outside the % scope of this RFC. Perhaps, this can be in section 3.2 instead. After much discussion back and forth, it was agreed that documenting IBGP Multipath behavior is a good thing. However, it is something that belongs in another draft. Alex opened this issue up again. There were a flury of responses, most all of them agreeing with the original consensus that we should document this feature in a different draft, since it doesn't affect the core interoperatbilty requirements, and we want to advance the spec in a timely manner. Alex persisted in his assertion that this belongs in the base specification. Right now, the issue is still open. This discussion later expanded in scope to include all BGP multipath. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) TCP Behavior Wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Minor wording change very contentious. Consensus was to leave things as they are. Discussion: The subjectless "your mail" thread discussed a wording clarification from: "An implementation that would "hang" the routing information process while trying to read from a peer could set up a message buffer (4096 bytes) per peer and fill it with data as available until a complete message has been received. " To something that is more TCP-correct, such as: "An implementation that would "hang" the routing information process while trying to received from a peer could set up a message buffer (4096 bytes) per peer and fill it with data as available until a complete message has been received. " (only change: "read" to "received" This was one of a couple of suggested changes.) This suggestion was quite contentious, and although there were a variety of alternate texts proposed, the only consensus was that this was a very minor issue, and probably not worth changing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) Next Hop for Originated Route ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No reponses, assumed consensus to keep things the same. Discussion: There was a one-message thread entitled "next hop for originated route". This message received no reponse, so the assumption is that there is a consensus to keep things as they are. For related discussion see issue 61. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Closed in favor of issue 61. Discussion: The thread entitled "NEXT_HOP to internal peer" starts with this question: When sending a locally originated route to an internal peer, what should NEXT_HOP be set to? One response suggested that we add a line stating that the NEXT_HOP address originates from the IGP. Since this issue and issue 61 are basically the same, except 61 proposes text, we'll close this issue in favor of 61. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) Grammer Fix ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change: "The Prefix field contains IP address prefixes ..." To: "contains an IP address prefix ..." Discussion: The thread entitled "Review comment: bottom of page 16" corrects a grammer mistake by suggesting we change: "The Prefix field contains IP address prefixes ..." to: "contains an IP address prefix ..." Yakov responded that this will be fixed in -18. The consensus seems to be to correct this, and go with the new text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) Need ToC, Glossary and Index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Need to add a Table of Contents (ToC), Glossary and Index to the draft. Will be added in draft -18. Discussion: The "Review Comments: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" thread suggests: 1. Document needs, Table of Contents, Glossary, and Index 2. Paths, Routes, and Prefixes need to be defined in the spec early on (like in a glossary), so it is obvious what is implied. Yakov responded that draft -18 will have a ToC and definition of commonly used terms. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add references to other RFC-status BGP docs to the base spec. Discussion: The "Review Comments: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" thread then changes titles to: "Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt" and goes on to suggest: 3. All BGP Extensions described in other documents that made it to RFC status should be at least referenced in the Reference section P.64. This is justifiable since it's the core BGP standard spec. Yakov responded that this will be added to the -18 review. Jonathan agreed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) IP Layer Fragmentation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No need to mention IP Layer Fragmentation in the BGP specification, since this is taken care of at the TCP level. Discussion: 1. P.6 section 4. Message Formats, its possible for the source BGP peer IP layer to fragment a message such that the receiving BGP peer socket layer would have to reassemble it. Need to mention this, since BGP implementations are required to do this. The response to this was that, while true, reassembly is something that is inherent in the TCP layer that BGP rides over. Therefore, this is something that is in the TCP spec, and needn't be repeated in the BGP spec. This comment was reaffirmed. There seems to be consensus that this isn't something that needs to be in the BGP spec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) Appendix Section 6.2: Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: This is a hotly debated issue. The choices are outlined in the discussion. We can: 1) Leave things the way they are 2) Take Curtis's suggestion for change 3) Remove the section entirely. Discussion: This first came up in reponse to Issue 17: There was one comment suggesting that section 6.2 (Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol" mentioned this. The original reviewer reponsed that the out-of-scope comment was out-of-place and refered the reponder to section 6.2 (appendix 6) The original reviewer stated that he is happy with just adding a reference to section 6.2 in appendix 6 and leaving it at that. Curtis suggested we just add a reference to Stevens in appendix 6. 6.2 and be done with it. Specifically: 6.2 Processing Messages on a Stream Protocol BGP uses TCP as a transport mechanism. If you are unsure as to how to handle asynchronous reads and writes on TCP sockets please refer to Unix Network Programming [RWStevens] or other introductory text for programming techniques for the operating system and TCP implementation that you are using. There were further suggestions to remove the section entirely as out-of-scope. At least 3 people agreed with this. Alex responded that he sees no reason to remove it, but wouldn't have a problem if the WG decides to do so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) Wording fix in Section 4.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: A small change for clarity in section 4.3 Discussion: This suggestion grew out of the discussion on Issue 18. The following change was suggested in section 4.3, second line of the first paragraph: s/UPDATE packet/UPDATE message/ Yakov agreed to this change and updated the draft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) Authentication Text Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that additional references to RFC2385 are not necessary. Discussion: P. 10, "Authentication Data:" section you might want to add this, It is also possible to use MD5 (RFC2385) at the transport layer to validate the entire BGP message. Yakov replied to this: There is already text that covers this: "Any authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be used in addition to BGP's own authentication mechanisms." .... "In addition, BGP supports the ability to authenticate its data stream by using [RFC2385]." So, I see no need to add the text proposed above. Ishi agreed with Yakov. Jonathan disagreed since he thought no one uses BGP auth. Ishi replied that there are lots of people who do use it. Jonathan replied with a clarification question: "Who uses *BGP's own* authentication mechanisms???" Ron Bonica replied that they use BGP auth. There was some additional discussion over who implements simple password authentication vs. MD5. After further discussion, the consensus seems to be that we should leave the text as it is for the reasons Yakov pointed out. There was some discussion over opening a new issue to discuss deprecating the BGP auth mechanism discussed in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism in RFC2385. The issue of Depricating BGP AUTH is discussed in issue 62. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: This is already being covered by text that has been added to the -18 draft. Discussion: P. 12, right after "Path Attributes". The following sentence should be added to this section to clarify the scope of the Path Attribute field. "All attributes in the Path Attribute field represent the characteristics of all the route prefixes defined in the NLRI field of the message". Yakov replied to this that: This will be covered by the following text in 3.1 that will be in the -18 version (see also issue 54). Routes are advertised between BGP speakers in UPDATE messages. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Therefore there is no need to add the sentence proposed above. There were no objections to this statement, so this issue has been moved into consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) Withdrawn and Updated routes in the same UPDATE message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: For various reasons, not least of which is compatability with existing implementaions, the decision was made to keep thing the way they are. Discussion: 4. P.16, last paragraph in section 4.3 as stated, "An UPDATE message should not include the same address prefix in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields, however a BGP speaker MUST be able to process UPDATE messages in this form. A BGP speaker should treat an UPDATE message of this form as if the WITHDRAWN ROUTES doesn't contain the address prefix." This complexity could have been avoided if withdrawn routes and NRLI prefixes with their attributes were mutually exclusive of each other and appeared in different update messages. If that was the case, the priority of which field to process first would have been as simple as using "first come, first served" message processing approach. Yakov commented that this would make the case where they are both in the same message unspecified. John commented that this is something we don't want to change this late in the game. Although it was acknowledged that this might be a good change if we were working from a clean slate. Ben acceeded that this was somewhat wishful thinking on his part. Curtis's comment seems to coincide with this message, stating: The existing rules are very clear. Summarized: If an UPDATE contains only a withdraw for a prefix, then withdraw whatever route the peer had previously sent. If an UPDATE contains the prefix only in the NRLI section, replace whatever route had previously been advertised by the peer or add a route if there was no previous route, in both cases adding a route with the current attributes. Don't put the same prefix in the same in both the withdraw and NRLI section of the same update. If you receive an UPDATE with the same prefix in both the withdraw and NRLI, ignore the withdraw. [Some older implementations thought this was a good way to say "delete then add".] Process UPDATEs from the same peer in the order received. And goes on to say, that to him, these rules are clear from the existing text. Consensus is that while this would be nice, we need to stick with what we have, and move on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: There are two views here. One argues that the mechanism for adding and deleting path attributes should be explicitly stated in the draft. The other argues that this is tied to the definition of "route" and additional specification is unnecessary. Discussion: 5. P. 20 Its not stated how we delete or modify Path Attributes associated with NLRI prefixes. A response to this comment said that this is implicit in the definition of "route" and the general withdraw/replace behavior and therefore doesn't need to be repeated. Ben responded saying that, while there was an assumption, there was no well defined mechanism, and this leads to ambiguity. John reponded, no need to define everything explicity, or we'll be here forever. Picking this thread up again, Yakov argued: By *definition* a route is a <path attribute, NLRI> pair. From that definition it follows that changing one or more path attributes of a route means changing a route, which means withdrawing the old route (route with the old attributes) from service and advertising a new route (route with the new attributes). Procedures for doing this are well-defined (see section 3.1), and therefore no new text to cover this is needed. Jonathan agreed with this statement, but Ben argued that the text in section 3 is insufficent the way it is currently written. After two iterations, Ben and Yakov agreed on this formulation for an update to section 3.1: Changing the attributes of a route is accomplished by advertising a replacement route. The replacement route carries new (changed) attributes and has the same NLRI as the original route. Jeff objected somewhat to the wording, since, because of a bgp route is defined as a <path attribute, NLRI> pair, changing either part of that pair, by definition, changes the route. He acknowledged that this might fall under the category of implementation detail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) NEXT_HOP Semantics ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: After reponders pointed out another sentance, this comment was resolved. Things will stay the way they are. Discussion: 1. P.28, 2nd to last paragraph. The line that reads, "To be semantically correct, the IP address in the NEXT_HOP must not be the IP address of the receiving speaker, and the NEXT_HOP IP address must either be the sender's IP address (used to establish the BGP session), or the interface associated with the NEXT_HOP IP address must share a common subnet with the receiving BGP speaker..." This is not always true, what if the current ASBR BGP router is advertising an external AS route (to a IBGP Peer) whose NEXT_HOP IP address is the IP address of the EBGP peer in the other AS? A response to this pointed out that right before this is a sentance stating that this only applied to eBGP links, and only when the peers are one hop from each other, so a modification is unnecessary. This reponse was confirmed with another. The original reviewer acknowldeged this and withdrew the comment. The consensus is to leave things the way they are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) Attributes with Multiple Prefixes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: After some discussion, the consensus is to keep things the same since the suggested behavior is defined in the message format. Discussion: 2. P. 29, Section 6.3. Add this rule near the attribute rules. "Multiple prefixes that require the same attribute type with different values must never appear in the same update message". A response to this suggested that this text is unnesessary since this behavior is ruled out by the way the message format is defined. The original commentor agrees with the reponder. The consensus is to leave things the way they are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: It is agreed that this is a change that exceeds the original goal of this draft revision. This goal is to document existing practice in an interoperable way. Discussion: 3. P. 29, Section 6.5, Please rewrite this sentence from: "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or NOTIFICATION messages within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message ..." To This: "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or any other BGP message within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message ..." There is disagreement on this change. It has been discussed in other threads. The original commentor acknowledged that this is something that would be "adding a new feature" as opposed to the stated goal of "documenting what exists." He suggested that the ADs decide if we should open the door for new features or not. Yakov replied to this that he would suggest we keep things as is, since the purpose is to document current implementations. This did not meet with any objections, so this issue has been moved into consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) BGP Identifier as Variable Quantity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that changing the BGP Identifier in the base draft is out-of-scope at this point in the draft evolution. Discussion: 4. P. 31, section 6.8, Please rewrite this sentence from: "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as (4-octet long) unsigned integers." To This: "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as large numbers based on their IP Address type (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, etc.)." A reponse to this was that since BGP Identifier is defined in the base spec as a 4 byte unsigned integer, and not a variable quantity, the sentance as written is acceptable. This was also confirmed by another response. The original commentor was thinking of IPv6, and providing sufficent space to allow a full v6 address to be used. Again, reponders said that this is out-of-scope for the current draft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add: "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence on p. 46. Discussion: 5. P.46, last sentence, "However, corresponding unresolvable routes SHOULD be kept in the Adj-RIBs-In." It would helpful if the author states why unresolvable routes should be kept in Adj-RIBs-In? A reponse to this stated "In case they become resolveable" Yakov responded that: I suggest we add "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence on p. 46. The original commentor stated that: Then the point that the peer will not refresh the route if we drop them (unless we use Route Refresh) because they are unreachable should be made. Yakov also responded that: This should be clear from the following text in Section 3: The initial data flow is the portion of the BGP routing table that is allowed by the export policy, called the Adj-Ribs-Out (see 3.2). Incremental updates are sent as the routing tables change. BGP does not require periodic refresh of the routing table. Jonathan, who was the original commentor, agreed with both the changed text and the clarity of section 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) Mention Other Message Types ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add a reference to RFC2918 at the end of the type code list. Discussion: 1. P. 7 Type: Need to add the new message types such as, Capability Negotiations (RFC2842), Route Refresh, etc. One reponse argued that these are out-of-scope of the base document. One reponse agreed, but thought that it should be capability and not message type. The original commentor reponsed about Message type from the capability draft. Sue mentioned this would be added in the second round. Yakov replied that: The only new message type that is covered by an RFC (rather than just an Internet Draft) is the Refresh message. With this in mind how about replacing the following: The following type codes are defined: 1 - OPEN 2 - UPDATE 3 - NOTIFICATION 4 - KEEPALIVE with This document defines the following type codes: 1 - OPEN 2 - UPDATE 3 - NOTIFICATION 4 - KEEPALIVE [RFC2918] defines one more type code. Jonathan agreed with this change. This issue has been moved to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) Add References to Additional Options ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Consensus to add: [RFC2842] defines another Optional Parameter. Discussion: 2. P. 9, right after "This document defines the following optional parameters:" Need to mention possible options, such as: Capabilitites (RFC2842), Multiprotocol extensions (RFC2858), Route Refresh (RFC2918). One reponse agreed that adding references would be fine. A second reponse agreed. Yakov replied that: Please note that only rfc2842 defines an OPEN optional parameter. Neither rfc2858 nor rfc2918 defines an OPEN optional parameter. With this in mind I would suggest to add the following text: [RFC2842] defines another Optional Parameter. The original poster agreed with this modification. This issue is at consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) Clarify EGP Reference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Need to clarify the EGP Reference, since there seems to be some confusion on the issue. This is partly addressed in the 32.1 text with the addition of a RFC904 reference to EGP ORIGIN type. Discussion: 3. P. 13, EGP, are there other EGP protocols other than BGP that are in use? If not, change EGP to BGP. A response to this suggested that we add a reference to [1] (the EGP spec) here. Another reponse clarified that this refers to EGP-the-protocol and NOT the class. Another response disagreed, but suggested that: IGP = network was explicitly introduced into bgp (network cmd) INCOMPLETE = network was implicitly introduced into bgp (redistribute) EGP = other The original commentor thought that this refered to EGP-the-class of protocols. And why not use BGP therefore, as the only EGP. There was some disucssion over whether or not we should mention something that is historical. Jeff suggested a footnote in the Origin section about EGP. Curtis suggested that we state that the EGP in ORIGIN is deprecated, but retain the value to document what it used to mean. This reviewer thinks a statement about whether this "EGP" origin refers to the protocol or the class or protocols would be useful. Yakov replied that an EGP reference will be added (see issue 9). Yakov also stated that he doesn't see what is wrong with the current text, and suggsted we keep it. This includes leaving out any reference to the status of the EGP spec. He sees that it is clear from context that we are talking about "the EGP" [RFC904]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Change section 5.1.1. Text is still being worked out. ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers. Consensus to change: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol to: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] Discussion: This discussion is picked up again in the "Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17" thread, where specific text is proposed: Old: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - Network Layer Reachability Information is interior to the originating AS 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol 2 INCOMPLETE - Network Layer Reachability Information learned by some other means" New: "ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute that defines the origin of the path information. The data octet can assume the following values: Value Meaning 0 IGP - NLRI was explicitly introduced into bgp 1 EGP - this value was administratively configured to affect policy decisions or NLRI was learned via the EGP protocol [1] 2 INCOMPLETE - NLRI was implicitly introduced into bgp" since: 1) The network command sets the origin to IGP and I remember seeing somewhere that only static routes should be set to IGP. 2) The primary use of EGP value is policy 3) EGP seems to still exist, anyway even if it does not it is not worth re-writing the world. Also, change: "5.1.1 ORIGIN ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the autonomous system that originates the associated routing information. It shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." to: "5.1.1 ORIGIN The value of the ORIGIN attribute shall be set by the speaker that originates the associated NLRI. Its value shall not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." since: 1) It is already defined as well-known mandatory attribute. 2) It may be set differently within the same AS (not saying this is good). 3) It is commonly used for policy, but by default does not get changed. 4) Speakers have no choice, it is mandatory. After much continued discussion on this in the "issue 32.1" thread, we seem to have come to a consensus that section 5.1.1 should read: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value should not be changed by any other speaker unless the other speaker is administratively configured to do so to affect policy decisions." This text met with a number of agreements, and one disagreement stating that we shouldn't have the "unless administratively configured" portion. After some further discussion, we have this text on the table: ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute is generated by the BGP speaker that originates the associated BGP routing information. The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers. Jonathan suggested that we change "propagate this information" to "forward this route". He also mentioned that he would prefer something more explicit instead of/in addition to "The attribute shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers." such as "other speakers do not change the ORIGIN value." On the issue of making the EGP ORIGIN type more clear Andrew proposed: To me, there seems to be sufficent confusion around the "EGP" reference to merit some sort of clarification. The simplest modification would be to change: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol to: 1 EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904] That would clarify that we're talking about the protocol, and not the class-of-protocols, or EBGP. It would leave unstated that this could theoretically be used to muck with route selection. I think that is ok. If operators want to override ORIGIN to affect some hoho magic, they are welcome to do so, but I don't think it needs to be documented in the base spec. This met with a number of agreements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: After much discussion, this is the consensus: This text in the current draft: To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet. will be replaced in -18 with the following text: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to be enforced*. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond that neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Discussion: In response to these proposals, Yakov proposed that the real problem is that it is not clear that BGP is build to support the destination-based forwarding paradigm. To fix this, it was propsed that: <OLD> To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the current Internet uses only the "hop-by-hop" inter-AS routing paradigm and since BGP can support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet. <NEW> Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforced using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Curtis thinks the newer text here is more clear. In reponse to the new text, Christian Martin propsed a slightly different new text: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic to a neighboring AS based on prefixes originating from the local AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. To which Yakov replied: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring AS to some destination (which is outside of the neighboring AS, but is reachable through the neighboring AS) intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by the traffic to the same destination that originating in the neighboring AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. And Chris reponsed: Routing information exchanged via BGP supports only the destination-based forwarding paradigm, which assumes that a router forwards a packet based solely on the destination address carried in the IP header of the packet. This, in turn, reflects the set of policy decisions that can (and can not) be enforces using BGP. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the destination-based forwarding paradigm, and thus require techniques such as source routing (aka explicit routing) to enforce. Such policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic through a neighboring AS to some destination beyond the neighboring AS intending that the traffic take a different route from that taken by traffic to the same destination which originates in the neighboring AS. In other words, the BGP policy of a local AS cannot affect the downstream (aka, away from the local AS) forwarding policy of a remote AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Tom Petch prefered Yakov's second formulation, with these changes: policies can not be enforced using BGP either. For example, BGP does not enable one AS to send traffic ! to a neighboring AS for forwarding to some destination (reachable through but) beyond ! that neighboring AS intending that ! the traffic take a different route to that taken by the traffic ! originating in the neighboring AS (for that same destination). On the other hand, BGP can support any policy conforming to the destination-based forwarding paradigm. Yakov agreed to Tom's suggested changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to MED Section Add "well-known mandatory" to the NEXT_HOP Section Discussion: 4. P.23, change the following: "The MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS ..." To the following: "The MULTI_EXIT_DISC is an optional non-transitive attribute which may be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS ..." A reponder disagreed, and stated reasons "covered elsewhere" Original commentor asked for reasons, since the modification seemed obvious to him. Yakov agreed to make this change in -18. Jonathan replied that: 5.1.3 NEXT_HOP also, it is missing " well-known mandatory". Yakov also agreed to make this change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) Timer & Counter Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: No discussion, no text proposed. Discussion: 5. In section 8, there are a number of Timers, Counters, etc. that need to be explicitly defined before they are used by the FSM. Perhaps these definitions should go in the Glossary section. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35) Fix Typo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix a Typo. No discussion, but this seem clear. Discussion: 1. P. 41. Typing error, "Each time time the local system...". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: This change requires a glossary. Yakov has committed to having a section where commonly used terms are defined in draft 18, so this issue is at consensus. Discussion: 2. Section 9.1, Need to have Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out, and Loc-RIB in the glossary, so when they are used in section 9.1, it is well understood what they are. Yakov replied: will be added to the section "Definition of commonly used terms" in -18 version. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37) Combine "Unfeasible Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: No definition extant for "Unfeasible Routes". Discussion: 3. P. 45, Phase I, There is no definition of what are unfeasible routes? Are they the same as withdrawn routes? If so, the two should be combined to one name. Ishi replied to this that he thought that we could combine the two terms, since there is limited difference from an implementation standpoint. Yakov replied: The routes are withdrawn from service because they are unfeasible, not because they are "withdrawn". So, we need to keep the term "unfeasible" to indicate the *reason* why a route could be withdrawn. On the other hand, "withdrawn" is used as a verb, and to the best of my knowledge "unfeasible" can't be used as a verb. With this in mind, I don't think that we can combine the two into a single term. Ishi replied that he was convinved, and that the terms should stay seperate. Andrew asked the list if we should define these terms in the "commonly used terms" section in draft -18. Ben replied that if we use them alot, we should define them, and if not local definitions will suffice. There was some back and forth about the necessity of defining terms which should be obvious. mrr actually checked the doc to see if we were consistantly using the terms, and found: It turns out there there is an inconsistancy in the usage of the word withdrawn. Section 3.1: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been withdrawn from service: ... b) a replacement route with the same NLRI can be advertised, or ... Later, in the definition of Withdrawn Routes Length, we have: A value of 0 indicates that no routes are being withdrawn from service, Taken together, this could be construed as meaning that a Withdrawn Routes Length of 0 indicates that all routes included in the UPDATE represent newly feasible routes... not replacement routes. Now, it's possible that this problem has been removed by changes to the text that have not yet been incorporated in to a new draft; however, it arose because the text, for the most part, does _not_ use "withdrawn" in the standard way. Instead, it refers to routes included in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field of an UPDATE message. Consequenty, I propose defining a "withdrawn route" as follows: Withdrawn route: a route included in the WITHDRAW ROUTES field of an UPDATE message. Regardless of whether or not this definition is included, Section 3.1 shold be changed from: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been withdrawn from service: to: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route has been removed from service: or: There are three methods by which a given BGP speaker can indicate that a route is now unfeasible: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38) Clarify Outbound Route Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Consensus that the issue was suffiecently minor to leave things alone. Discussion: 4. P. 50, line, "If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out the previously advertised route in that Adj-RIB-Out must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)." Would like to rephrase the sentence for clarity, "If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out and was previously advertised via Adj-RIB-Out, it must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)." One comment suggested either leave it alone, or remove "via Adj-RIB-Out". The original commentor withdrew the comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Redundant definitions, clarity requested. Possible solution below. Discussion: 5. P. 50, section 9.1.4, The two fragments of this sentence are redundant and don't say anything new or simplify the content. Just keep one fragment. "A route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix) is said to be more specific than a route describing a larger set of destinations (a shorted prefix); similarly, a route describing a larger set of destinations (a shorter prefix) is said to be less specific than a route describing a smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix)." There was a comment that disagreed, thinking that both "more specific" and "less specific" need to be defined. And suggested that only the third and forth parentheses need to be dropped. The original commentor agreed with the parentheses changes. Yakov agreed to drop the third and fourth parentheses in the -18 version. Jonathan replied to this: Disagree, the text if fine the way it is, except you need to change "shorted" to "shorter". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: The consensus is that current practice allows for the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval to be set per peer, so the text should be kept the same. Discussion: 6. P. 52, section 9.2.1.1 Change this sentence for clarity, "This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-destination basis, although the value of MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is set on a per BGP peer basis." To This: "This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-destination basis, although the value of MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is set on a BGP router (same value for all peers) basis." There was a comment disagreeing with this proposal. It was later elaborated on to include that the reason for diagreement was that the proposed changes changed the protocol and not just a practice clarification. Ben reponded asking for how this is a protocol change, he saw it as a clarification. Perhaps there is something deeper that needs to be clarified? Again, response to this is that current implementations allow the MinRouteAdvertisementInterval to be set per-peer, not per-router. Original reviwer conceeded the point. There was some additonal discussion on this point. Most of it was along the lines of extracting what was really implemented and supported among various vendors. The conclusion was the same. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41) Mention FSM Internal Timers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: No discussion on this issue. No text proposed. Perhaps this is in the FSM section of the draft? Discussion: 7. P. 61, item 6.4. Although all the BGP protocol interfacing timers are mentioned, there are a few FSM internal timers mentioned in the spec that need to be covered here as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42) Delete the FSM Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: There was some confusion on the question: Is the FSM draft going to be a seperate document, or incorporated into the base draft. The consensus is that it is going to become part of the base draft, so the FSM section will be kept, and elaborated on. Discussion: 8. Since there is going to be an FSM spec, do we need to have FSM descriptions in this spec. Maybe the FSM section should be delete. There was one response agreeing with this. One reponse asking for claificaiton: Was this a move to remove section 8. Finite State Machine from the base draft?? The original reviewer said, yes, when Sue's FSM draft becomes a WG document, we should remove section 8 from the base draft. Yakov asked that the AD's provide input on this suggestion. Alex responded saying that the FSM draft is going to be part of the base spec, and not another document once the FSM words are approved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace: "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." With: If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer. Discussion: The "NOTIFICATION message error handling" thread proposed: Please change" "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." To: "If a peer receives a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via a subsequent NOTIFICATION message." This reversal of meaning met with disagreement, and this text was proposed instead: All errors detected while processing the NOTIFICATION message cannot be indicated by sending subsequent NOTIFICATION message back to originating peer, therefore there is no means of reporting NOTIFICATION message processing errors. Any error, such as an unrecognized Error Code or Error Subcode, should be noticed, logged locally, and brought to the attention of the administration of the peer that has sent the message. The means to do this, however, lies outside the scope of this document. The original posted agreed with the intent of the respondant's text, thought it was too wordy, but did not propose alternate text. Yakov replied with this propsed text: If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer. Two responses liked this new text. Unless there are objections, we'll consider that a consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: One commentor observed that the spec seems to specify behavior that doesn't seem to be observed by extant implementations, and suggested modifications to the spec. They were later reminded that the base behavior is acceptable, and agreed. Discussion: The "BGP4 draft ; section 6.2" thread began with a discussion of section 6.2: OPEN message error handling. Specifically: "If one of the optional parameters in the Open mesage is not recognized, then the error subcode is set to 'unsupported optional parameters" We have hit on this line when we were testing a BGP connection between a speaker that supported capability negotiation and a speaker that did not. The speaker that did not support the neogotiation closed down the peering session using the error clause mentioned above. Sometimes this lead to the other router to repeat the OPEN message with the Capability optional parameter; a game that went on for minutes. This router manufacturer stated in a reply to this that : "One should not close down the connection if an optional parameter is unrecognised. That would make this parameter basically mandatory. This is an well known error in the BGP spec. Neither Cisco or Juniper do this" If this is true it might be good to adapt the text. The response to this quoted RFC2842, Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4: A BGP speaker determines that its peer doesn't support capabilities advertisement, if in response to an OPEN message that carries the Capabilities Optional Parameter, the speaker receives a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Subcode set to Unsupported Optional Parameter. In this case the speaker should attempt to re-establish a BGP connection with the peer without sending to the peer the Capabilities Optional Parameter. The original poster responded: This section from the Capabilities Advertisement RFC, is indeed inline with the section 6.2 of the BGP4 specification. For me however the question remains if most implementations do no simply ignore optional parameters that are unknown. And if so, if the text stated above reflects what is implemented by routers that do not have capability advertisement at all. Yakov replied to this with: RFC2842 assumes that a router (that doesn't implement RFC2842) would close the BGP session when the router receives an OPEN message with an unrecognized Optional Parameter. Therefore the text in the spec should be left unmodified. The original poster, Jonathan, agreed with this. This issue moves to consensus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45) Consistant References to BGP Peers/Connections/Sessions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Update the document to make references to BGP Peers, Connections and Sessions more clear and consistant. Proposed text is below, as well as current comments. Discussion: Ben proposed and Yakov responded: > 1. Throughout the document we have various ways of naming the BGP > peering communication. 1) BGP Session, 2) BGP Peering Session, I'll replace "session" with "connection". > 3) TCP Connection, The spec doesn't name BGP peering communication as "TCP connection"; TCP connection is used to establish BGP connection. So, TCP connection and BGP connection are two different things. > 4) BGP Connection, The spec is going to use this term (see above). > 5) BGP Peering Connection, I'll replace "BGP peering connection" with "BGP connection". > 6) Connection, The text uses "connection" whenever it is clear from the context that it refers to "BGP connection" (or "TCP connection"). > 7) BGP Speaker Connection. I'll replace "BGP Speaker Connection" with "BGP connection". > > BGP router: 1) BGP Speaker, 2) speaker, 3)local speaker The term "speaker" is used when it is clear from the context that we are talking about "BGP speaker". > 2. Change Internal peer to IBGP Peer. IBGP stands for "BGP connection between internal peers". Therefore the term "IBGP Peer" would mean "BGP connection between internal peers peer". That doesn't seem appropriate. This issue has had some discussion, and section 3 was referenced, specifically: Refer to Section 3 - Summary of operations which clearly states that " .. a peer in a different AS is referred to as an external peer, while a peer in the same AS may be described as an internal peer. Internal BGP and external BGP are commonly abbreviated IBGP and EBGP" After more discussion it was decided that we should modify a paragraph on page 4 to read: If a particular AS has multiple BGP speakers and is providing transit service for other ASs, then care must be taken to ensure a consistent view of routing within the AS. A consistent view of the interior routes of the AS is provided by the IGP used within the AS. For the purpose of this document, it is assumed that a consistent view of the routes exterior to the AS is provided by having all BGP speakers within the AS maintain IBGP with each other. Care must be taken to ensure that the interior routers have all been updated with transit information before the BGP speakers announce to other ASs that transit service is being provided. This change has consensus. > 3. Change External peer to EBGP Peer. Ditto. Alex responded that haveing explicit definitions would be nice. This ties into the general glossary suggestion (see issues 16, 34 & 36). He also suggested that: "BGP session" which works over a "TCP connection" would be closer to the terminology we're actually using now and would avoid possible confusions when people read terms like "Connection collision") This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46) FSM Connection Collision Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We need to decide which text (the original base draft, or the FSM draft) needs to be updated to clear up this issue. There does appear to be agreement that some clarification would be beneficial. Discussion: The original reviewer (Tom) commented that the base draft, FSM section, could use some clarification around the area of connection collision detection. Specifically, he argued that it seems like there are actually 2 FSM's depending on which one backs off in the case of a collision. He proposed this text to clear things up: "8 BGP FInite State Machine This section specifies BGP operation - between a BGP speaker and its peer over a single TCP connection - in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before) Instead of just "This section specifies BGP operation in terms of a Finite State Machine (FSM). Following is a brief summary ... "(as before). Curtis responded: There is one FSM per connection. Prior to determining what peer a connection is associated with there may be two connections for a given peer. There should be no more than one connection per peer. The collision detection identifies the case where there is more than one connection per peer and provides guidance for which connection to get rid of. When this occurs, the corresponding FSM for the connection that is closed should be disposed of. I'm not sure which document containing an FSM we should be reading at this point, but we could add the above paragraph if we need to explicitly state that the extra connection and its FSM is disposed of when a collision is detected. When a TCP accept occurs, a connection is created and an FSM is created. Prior to the point where the peer associated with the connection is known the FSM cannot be associated with a peer. The collision is a transient condition in which the rule of "one BGP session per peer" is temporarily violated and then corrected. This is discussed in the "FSM but FSM of what?" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47) FSM - Add Explicit State Change Wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: A desire for explicit state change wording was expressed. No text was proposed. Additional information was solicited, but the discussion may have gone private. Discussion: The initial reviewer: In most places, the actions taken on the receipt of an event include what the new state will be or that it remains unchanged. But there are a signficant number of places where this is not done (eg Connect state events 14, 15, 16). I would like to see consistency, always specify the new/unchanged state. Else I may be misreading it. There was a reponse asking for specific text, and offering to take the discussion private. This is discussed in the "FSM words - state changes" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Text has been proposed to describe the general process of a BGP connection comming up. Discussion: Alex suggsted we explicity define: - processing of incoming TCP connections (peer lookup, acceptance, FSM creation, collision control,) Curtis later proposed this text: BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. For each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is not known with certainty. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same peer may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each peer plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. Jonathan pointed out that there was an inaccuracy in the proposed text. Curtis replied with this: You're correct in that you must have a collision of IP addresses on the TCP connections and that the BGP Identifier is used only to resolve which gets dropped. The FSM stays around as long as "BGP Identifier" is not known. Replace "not known with certainty" with "known but the BGP identifier is not known" and replace "for the same peer" with "for the same configured peering". The first paragraph is unchanged: BGP must maintain separate FSM for each configured peer. Each BGP peer paired in a potential connection will atempt to connect to the other. For the purpose of this discussions, the active or connect side of a TCP connection (the side sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing. The passive or listenning side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called the an incoming connection. The second paragraph becomes: A BGP implementation must connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers. For each incoming connection, a state machine must be instantiated. There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier is not known. During this time, both an incoming and outgoing connection for the same configured peering may exist. This is referred to as a connection collision (see Section x.x, was 6.8). The next paragraph then needs to get fixed. Changed "for each peer" to "for each configured peering". A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one TCP connection. Add a paragraph to further clarify the point you made. There may be more than one connection between a pair of peers if the connections are configured to use a different pair of IP addresses. This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" to the same peer. > So multiple simultaneous BGP connection are allowed between the same two > peers, and this behavior is implemented, for example to do load balancing. Good point. I hope the corrections above cover your (entirely valid) objections. If you see any more errors please let me know. Tom replied that: I take issue with the 'will attempt to connect' which goes too far. The FSM defines events 4 and 5, 'with passive Transport establishment', so the system may wait and not attempt to connect. The exit from this state is either the receipt of an incoming TCP connection (SYN) or timer expiry. So we may have a FSM attempting to transport connect for a given source/destination IP pair or we may have an FSM not attempting to connect. (In the latter case, I do not think we can get a collision). In the latter case, an incoming connection should not generate an additional FSM. I do not believe the concept of active and passive is helpful since a given system can flip from one to the other and it does not help us to clarify the number of FSM involved.. And Curtis suggested that: Could this be corrected by replacing "will attempt to connect" with "unless configured to remain in the idle state, or configured to remain passive, will attempt to connect". We could also shorten that to "will attempt to connect unless configured otherwise". Clarification (perhaps an item for a glossary entry): The terms active and passive have been in our vocabulary for almost a decade and have proven useful. The words active and passive have slightly different meanings applied to a TCP connection or applied to a peer. There is only one active side and one passive side to any one TCP connection as per the definition below. When a BGP speaker is configured passive it will never attempt to connect. If a BGP speaker is configured active it may end up on either the active or passive side of the connection that eventually gets established. Once the TCP connection is completed, it doesn't matter which end was active and which end was passive and the only difference is which side of the TCP connection has port number 179. This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49) Explicity Define Event Generation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Suggested that we explictiy define BGP message processing. No text proposed. Discussion: Alex suggsted we explicity define: - generation of events while processing BGP messages, i.e., the text describing message processing should say where needed that a specific event for the BGP session should be generated. No text was proposed. This was discussed in the "Generial Editorial Comment" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50) FSM Timers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Discussion tabled, because new document version rendered the discussion moot. Discussion: This discussion began with a suggestion that the timers currently in the FSM: In the 26Aug text, I find the timer terminology still confusing. Timers can, I find, stop start restart clear set reset expire Can be cleaned up and simplified to: start with initial value (spell it out just to be sure) stop expire A reponse to this proposal was, that the existing set is clear, and that the proposed set is insufficently rich to describe a concept like "reset" which encompases: "Stop the timer, and reset it to its initial value." This discussion reached an impasse, when Sue pointed out that the text had been updated, and to please review the new text. This was discussed in the "FSM more words" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51) FSM ConnectRetryCnt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Discussion tabled, because new document version rendered the discussion moot. Discussion: This started with the observation that the ConnectRetryCnt "seems to have lost its purpose." It was suggested that this be made a Session Attribute, along with: OpenDelayTimer and DelayOpenFlag. Curtis explained that the current purpose of the ConnectRetryCnt is something to be read by the MIB. He also advocated against adding the additional Session Attributes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52) Section 3: Keeping routes in Adj-RIB-In ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. Discussion: This thread started with a question about why we should retain routes in the Adj-RIB-In, and how it relates to the Route Refresh extention. mrr proposed this text: ... Therefore, a BGP speaker must either retain the current version of the routes advertised by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. This is necessary to allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without requiring the reset of any peering sessions. If the implementation decides not to retain the current version of the routes that have been received from a peer, then Route Refresh messages should be sent whenever there is a change to local policy. Yakov later suggsted this text, with a slight rewording: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [12]. mrr reponded that he was fine with Yakov's suggestions. This was discussed in the "Proxy: comments on section 3" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Advertise ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Clean up the wording in text surrounding the UPDATE message. There was no discussion or consensus on this. But, does the consensus change reached in issue 54 address this sufficently? Discussion: This issue arose out of this question to the list: Since: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are the systems whose IP addresses are reported in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message." When I read section 4.3: "An UPDATE message is used to advertise feasible routes sharing common path attribute to a peer, or to withdraw multiple unfeasible routes from service (see 3.1)." Shouldn't the text read "... advertise feasible [prefixes | destinations] sharing common path attribute(S)to a peer ...", because: 1) A route is defined as quoted above from section 3.1? or since ... "An UPDATE message can advertise at most one set of path attributes, but multiple destinations ..." 2) make "routes" in the orignal singular. There was no discussion or consensus on this. This was discussed in the "Review Comments: Section 4.3: "routes" vs. destinations - advertise" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54) Section 4.3 - Routes v. Destinations - Withdraw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change the definition of "route" as it currently stands to: For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are contained in one IP address prefix carried in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE message and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Discussion: This issue was brought up with this question: When I read these two paragraphs at the end of section 4.3: "An UPDATE message can list multiple routes to be withdrawn from service. Each such route is identified by its destination (expressed as an IP prefix), which unambiguously identifies the route in the context of the BGP speaker - BGP speaker connection to which it has been previously advertised. An UPDATE message might advertise only routes to be withdrawn from service, in which case it will not include path attributes or Network Layer Reachability Information. Conversely, it may advertise only a feasible route, in which case the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field need not be present." It reads as if one must withdraw the _set of destinations_ advertised with the route instead of just one or more destinations since route is defined in section 3.1 as: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are the systems whose IP addresses are reported in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message." Shouldn't the text change "routes" to destinations, or to prefixes? The original commentor added this clarificaiton later: I meant to say, the *same* set of destinations as those advertised initially. For example, NLRI with dest-a, dest-b and dest-c with the same attributes is a "route". The withdrawal of the "route" can be read as one must withdraw all destinations originally advertised for that route (dest-a, dest-b, dest-c) as a unit. A first time reader could be left wondering if the above must be the case, or it is valid for an implementation to withdraw just one of these destinations (e.g. dest-b), leaving the others (dest-a, dest-c) reachable with their attributes intact. If there is no relationship between destinations when advertised as a set of destinations in a route and those destinations that can be withdrawn should be explicitly stated. Otherwise, the draft should call out that it is not legal to withdraw one prefix only in the set of prefixes advertised as previously as route. Matt suggested that since the definition seems to cause some confusion, that we update teh definition to: "For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are reported in one prefix present in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. This definition allows multiple routes to be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE. All such prefixes must be associated with the same set of path attributes." Yakov suggested some minor rewording: For the purpose of this protocol, a route is defined as a unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the attributes of a path to those destinations. The set of destinations are systems whose IP addresses are contained in one IP address prefix carried in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field of an UPDATE message and the path is the information reported in the path attributes field of the same UPDATE message. Multiple routes that have the same path attributes can be advertised in a single UPDATE message by including multiple prefixes in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message. Both Jeff and Matt responded that they liked this text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace: Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs in the path segment value field. With: Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (not the number of octets) in the path segment value field. Discussion: This question was raised: Length fields elsewhere in the draft specify the number of bytes that a variable length field uses. For AS_PATH, length is used as the number of 2 byte AS numbers. In the interest of not having to check other sources to be sure, should the descripton of path segment value: "The path segment value field contains one or more AS numbers, each encoded as a 2-octets long field." explicitly mention the number of bytes used by the variable length field? Or, make the description of length explicitly mention that it is not the length of the variable length field as is the case with other length fields? One respone to this agreed that some more clarification would be good, specifically an ASCII art diagram. No diagram was proposed. Yakov proposed this change: How about replacing Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs in the path segment value field. with the following Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (but not the number of octets) in the path segment value field. Jonathan offered this text: How about: "Path segment length is a 1-octet long field containing the number of ASs (which is half the number of octets since each AS is 2 octets) in the path segment value field (also note that the path may contain more than 1 segment). Jeff replied that he prefered Yakov's text, but without the "but". Yakov agreed to that. Andrew also agreed, and asked if there were any objections to moving this issue into consensus. There were no objections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: There are a variety of updates to the text that are best described in the discussion section. Discussion: This discussion began with some suggestions on ways to clarify the text in section 6 dealing with error handling. The original comments, and Yakov's response are below: > At the beginning of Section 6. BGP Error Handling: > > > "When any of the conditions described here are detected, a > NOTIFICATION message with the indicated Error Code, Error Subcode, > and Data fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed." > > There are several cases where the conditions described in this section > do not result in the BGP connection being closed. These conditions > should either state that the connection stays up. Another possibility > is to remove "and the BGP connection is closed." above, and for each > listed connection, state what happens to the BGP connection. This > already takes place for certain conditions, but isn't done consistantly. How about replacing the above with the following: When any of the conditions described here are detected, a NOTIFICATION message with the indicated Error Code, Error Subcode, and Data fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed, unless it is explicitly stated that no NOTIFICATION message is to be sent and the BGP connection is not to be close. > > > I tried to list what I found (which may be wrong or incomplete) below: > > > > "If the NEXT_HOP attribute is semantically incorrect, the error should > be logged, and the route should be ignored. In this case, no > NOTIFICATION message should be sent." > > * Append the connection is not closed. Done. > > "(a) discard new address prefixes from the neighbor, or (b) terminate > the BGP peering with the neighbor." > > * Append "the connection is not closed" to case (a) added "(while maintaining BGP peering with the neighbor)" to case (a). > > "If > the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be > stored in the Adj-RIB-In," > > * append and the BGP connection stays up. > > "but unless the router is configured to > accept routes with its own autonomous system in the AS path, the > route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process." I would suggest to move this text to Section 9 (UPDATE message handling), as receiving a route with your own AS in the AS path isn't really an error. It is just that usually (but not always) you can't put this route in your Adj-RIB-In. > > * Q1) does the BGP connection stay up? yes. > * Q2) what if the router isn't configured to accept routes with its own > AS in the AS path? One _may_ store the route in Adj-RIB-In, but if one > doesn't want to? So, don't store them. > Is the BGP connection closed? If so, what subcode? The connection is *not* closed. > "If an optional attribute is recognized, then the value of this > attribute is checked. If an error is detected, the attribute is > discarded, and the Error Subcode is set to Optional Attribute Error. > The Data field contains the attribute (type, length and value)." > > * Append and the BGP conneciton stays up after "the attribute is discarded". Since you have to close the connection, you have to discard all the routes received via this connection, including the route with the incorrect attribute. So, there is no need to say that "the attribute is discarded". There have been no objections to the updates listed above. This issue seems to have reached a happy ending, so it has been moved into consensus. This was discussed in the "-17 review Section 6 - BGP Error Handling." thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57) Section 6.2 - Hold timer as Zero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: It was suggested that we update the text to say that we MUST reject hold time values of zero. It was pointed out that this is not the case and the text should say the way it is. Discussion: In Section 6.2 on OPEN message error handling: If the Hold Time field of the OPEN message is unacceptable, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Unacceptable Hold Time. An implementation MUST reject Hold Time values of one or two seconds. I feel that text similar to: "An implementation MUST also reject Hold Time values of zero received from a peer in a different AS" should be considered for completeness. A number of respondants pointed out that zero hold time is legitimate under certain circumstances. This was discussed in the "-17 review, Section 6.2 - must reject hold time" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: After some discussion, it would seem that the group is converging on an opinion that ATOMIC_AGGREGATE should be moved to an informational status. Discussion: Jeff opened this discussion with: Deprecation of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: [This is a summary of some discussions from those who have "been there, done that" during the CIDR deployment period and also comments from network operators on the NANOG list.] When BGP-4 was originally drafted, the topic of aggregation was new enough that people didn't exactly know how it would be used. Additionally, there were some transition issues when aggregated networks would need to be de-aggregated and re-advertised into a classful routing mesh such as BGP-3. The ATOMIC_AGGREGATE flag was intended to prevent a route from being de-aggregated when de-aggregation would introduce routing loops. Note that de-aggregation in this context specifically means making a less specific route into one or more more-specific routes. The current BGP draft has two situations where ATOMIC_AGGREGATE should be appeneded to a route: 1. When a route's AS_PATH is intentionally truncated, such as what happens by default on Cisco's, or using the "brief" option on GateD. Juniper has a similar feature - I'm unsure of the default. 2. When two routes are implicitly aggregated in the LocRib such that a more specific route is not selected when a less specific route is from a given peer. Note that this particular feature is not implemented anywhere that I am aware of. 3. There is a third case not covered by the specification: Implicit aggregation on export - a more specific route is not exported and only a less specific one is. When network operators were asked about de-aggregation practices, I received about 40 responses. The majority of these responses confused de-aggregation with leaking existing more-specific routes that are used internally rather than explicitly de-aggregating a less-specific route. There were a very few cases of explicit de-aggregation. One form was done for purposes of dealing with another ISP creating a routing DoS by advertising IP space that didn't belong to them - leaked more specifics alleviated the problem in many cases. (Note that this is a security issue in the routing system.) The second case was de-aggregating routes internally (and sending the routes via IBGP marked with NO-ADVERTISE) for purposes of traffic engineering routing internally where a given upstream failed to provide enough routing information to allow traffic flows to be optimized based on supplied prefixes. My conclusions to this are: 1. De-aggregation is not a common practice. 2. It is no longer a major concern since classful inter-domain routing is pretty much gone. 3. The spec doesn't match reality and should be corrected. My suggestions are thus this: Section 5.1.6 should be updated as follows: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. Its use is deprecated. When a router explicitly aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated (usually due to truncation), the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. Section 9.1.4 should be updated as follows: Original text: : If a BGP speaker receives overlapping routes, the Decision Process : MUST consider both routes based on the configured acceptance policy. : If both a less and a more specific route are accepted, then the : Decision Process MUST either install both the less and the more : specific routes or it MUST aggregate the two routes and install the : aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same value of : the NEXT_HOP attribute. : : If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add : ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries : ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the : NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along : such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually : traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Replace with: It is common practice that more specific routes are often implicitly aggregated by selecting or advertising only a less-specific route when overlapping routes are present. As such, all routes SHOULD be treated as if ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is present and not be made more specific (de-aggregated). De-aggregation may lead to routing loops. Section 9.2.2 should remain as it is. Implications of not making the above updates: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is not implemented as documented. Current operational practices do not seem to often trigger situations that it was intended to remediate. After all, by the way it is currently documented, many of the routes in the Internet would likely have ATOMIC_AGGREGATE. The original motivation for this investigation (aside from a few years of wondering what this portion of the spec *really* meant) was making sure the MIB is correctly documented. I can do this now, even if the spec is not corrected by simply noting that the values: lessSpecificRouteNotSelected(1), lessSpecificRouteSelected(2) mean: ATOMIC_AGGREGATE not present ATOMIC_AGGREGATE present rather than documenting anything about less and more specific routes. The v2MIB can be fixed to just call it what it is since it hasn't been RFC'ed yet. Lastly, the spec would just be incorrect. But all said, nothing bad would really come of this. Yakov responded to this, saying that he thought these changes were reasonable, and unless there were objections, they would be adopted. Ishi strongly agreed with the changes. Curtis stated that: We used to add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE whenever the AS_PATH was truncated rather than replaced with an AS_SET. It was always purely informational since no one intentionally deaggregated and reannounced. And suggested that we remove the MUSTs and indicated that this is only informational. Jeff replied that: The point is that by definition of the attribute, anywhere that policy is used (and some places where it may not be), ATOMIC_AGGREGATE *should* be there. Since its not, and it would generally be everwhere, you just shouldn't de-aggregate. At best, leaving it as a method of informationally signalling truncation of a AS_PATH is the best we'll get out of it - and it matches current implementations. Jonathan agreed with Curtis' idea that we should just move ATOMIC_AGGREGATE to informational. Curtis proposed this text: This existing text is fine: f) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE (Type Code 6) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute of length 0. Usage of this attribute is described in 5.1.6. This is the existing text that we are considering changing: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Suuggested new text: 5.1.6 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) when advertising this route to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute needs to be cognizant of the fact that the actual path to destinations, as specified in the NLRI of the route, while having the loop-free property, may not be the path specified in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Diffs (for reader convenience): @@ -4,13 +4,19 @@ ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute. When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of - advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated - route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH - of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when - advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. + advertisement to a particular peer, the AS_PATH of the + aggregated route normally includes an AS_SET formed from the set of + AS from which the aggregate was formed. In many cases the network + administrator can determine that the aggregate can safely be + advertised without the AS_SET and not form route loops. + + If an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in + the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of + dropping the AS_SET, the aggregated route, when advertised to the + peer, SHOULD include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE - attribute MUST NOT remove the attribute from the route when + attribute SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers. A BGP speaker that receives a route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE Current text in 9.1.4: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it MUST add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute can not be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. Change to: If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include all AS used to form the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. This attribute is now primarily informational. With the elimination of IP routing protocols that do not support classless routing and the elimination of router and host implementations that do not support classless routing, there is no longer a need to deaggregate. Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated. A route that carries ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in particular MUST NOT be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route can not be made more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASs listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. This text in 9.2.2.2 need not change. ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route shall have this attribute as well. The appendix need not change: Appendix 1. Comparison with RFC1771 [...] Clarifications to the use of the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. This might be a bit more wordy that is necessary. It does address the objections to keeping ATOMIC_AGGREGATE by making the MUST into SHOULD, and explaining that ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is now primarily informational. Yakov was fine with this text. So at this point we're trying to achieve consensus with the text Curtis has proposed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59) Section 4.3 - Move text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes (minimal) Summary: Update indentation to allow a new "subsection" heading. Otherwise no change. Discussion: This began with this suggestion: The text about the mimimum length, at first look, gives the impression that it is still part of the NLRI field description and/or the Path Attributes section. A new "subsection" or heading of some sort would be helpfull in switching context back to the UPDATE message as a whole and not the path attributes field anymore. Yakov agreed to update the indentation. Jonathan agreed, and suggested this text: " The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 23 octets -- 19 octets for the fixed header + 2 octets for the Withdrawn Routes Length + 2 octets for the Total Path Attribute Length (the value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." Should be moved up to just after "... the Total Path Attribute Length field and the Withdrawn Routes Length field." Yakov responded to this with: Disagree, as "... the Total Path Attribute Length field and the Withdrawn Routes Length field." explains how to calculate the length of NLRI field (and therefore is part of the NLRI field description), while "The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 23 octets...." has to do with the length of the UPDATE message. Jonathan also suggested: " the value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." Should be changed to " the min. value of Withdrawn Routes Length is 0 and the min. value of Total Path Attribute Length is 0)." And Yakov responded with: Disagree, as the text doesn't talk about what is the minimum value of the Withdrawn Routes Length and Total Path Attribute Length fields, but talks about the value of these fields in the case of a min length UPDATE message. After Yakov's response and a posting to the list asking that this be moved to consensus, there were no objections, so this is moved to consensus. This is discussed in the "Review: Comments: Section 4.3: UPDATE min length" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Make this change to clarify path attributes in an UPDATE: To correct the confusion I propose to replace: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. with: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE message, except for an UPDATE message that carries only the withdrawn routes. Discussion: This thread began with MikeC pointing out: The top of page 13 says: "A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE." Is this really true, given that later, in the second to last paragraph of this section (4.3): "An UPDATE message might advertise only routes to be withdrawn from service, in which case it will not include path attributes or Network Layer Reachability Information." This could be confusing to a first time reader. The path attribute length is present in every UPDATE, the path attribute field itself can be left out, both according to the description of the minimum length of the UPDATE message and (implied?) in the picture of the UPDATE message at the beginning of section 4.3. This met with one agreement. Yakov then proposed that: To correct the confusion I propose to replace: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. with: A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE message, except for an UPDATE message that carries only the withdrawn routes. There was one agreement with this proposal. This is discussed in the thread: "Review: Section 4.3 - Path Attributes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: There was text suggested, but no discussion. Discussion: Jonathan began this thread with: I propose adding: "When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer)." AFTER "When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP." There has been no discussion on this. This is discussed in the "Next hop for redistributed routes" thread. Issue 14 closed in favor of this issue. In response to Yakov's call for input, Michael responded that: Section 5.1.3 explictly states what to do when originating to an etternal peer. #2 covers one hop away, #3 covers more than on hop away. #1 talks about sending to an iBGP peer, but only when propergating a route received from an eBGP peer. 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. Text similar to #2 shoud be added, in their own bullit items to #1 such as what was suggested by Jonathan Natale (text is above.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We are at consensus, in that we agree that we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter as described in RFC1771 in favor of the mechanism described in RFC2385. We do not have new text for the draft yet, of if we are going to pull the reference entirely. Discussion: This discussion started in issue 21: Authentication Text Update. This topic has come up before (July timeframe), but was recently refreshed in the context of issue 21. It began with some questions to the list as to who used what sort of authentication mechanisms. From the responses it was clear that MD5 (RFC2385) was the prefered method. Eric Gray's message helps to flesh this out: The question is not whether MD5 authentication is used, it is how is it implemented in real BGP implementations or - more importantly - where is the authentication information located in the packets sent between two BGP peers? This is not strictly an implementation issue because authentication information is located in different places depending on which version of MD5 authentication is in use. As is generally known, options are not necessarily good. Currently, between RFC 1771 and RFC 2385, there are two very distinct ways to accomplish a semantically identical function. If the mechanism defined in RFC 1771 is not supported by a number of interoperable implementations, it must be deprecated per RFC 2026 prior to advancing the specification to Draft Standard. If it is not implemented and actually in use, it should be deprecated if for no other reason than to make the To this Yakov responded: To be more precise, In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those options or features are removed. So, the relevant question is whether we have at least two implementations that support authentication as described in rfc1771. Folks who implemented authentication, as described in rfc1771, please speak up. There have been no responses to Yakov's question. There seems to be a consensus that, since it is little used, and since there are better mechanisms, namely MD5 authentication, we should deprecate the BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63) Clarify MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: There was text suggested, but no discussion. Discussion: This discussion began when Jonathan posted a question to the list: In reference to: "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route" Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it cannot. Juniper??? Other code??? Change to "SHOULD"??? Enke responded that: As the MED value is treated as zero when the MED attribute is missing, removing the MED attribute is really equivalent to setting the value to zero. Based on this logic, one can argue that "MED removal" is supported by multiple vendors. However, I do see that the current text can be consolidated and cleaned up: ------------------------ 5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC ... A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). ------------------------- How about this: A BGP speaker MUST implement a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the value of MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute of a received route to be altered. This shall be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). -------------------------- In responding to a question, Enke also added: > Humm. I thought with a missing MED it was prefereable to be treated as > worst not as 0. It was changed a long time ago. Please see the following text in Sect. 9.1.2.2 of the draft: In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. --PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Changelog.txt" CHANGELOG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.1.1 to v1.2 2002-09-25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 11.3) Documenting IBGP Multipath 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text Updated: 1) IDR WG Charter 8) Jitter Text 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 10) Extending AS_PATH Attribute 11) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 13) Next Hop for Originated Route 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 24) Addition or Deletion of Path Attributes 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32) Clarify EGP Reference 32.1) EGP ORIGIN Clarification 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 37) Combine "Unfeasable Routes" and "Withdrawn Routes" 39) Redundant Sentance Fragments 40) Section 9.2.1.1 - Per Peer vs. Per Router MinRouteAdvertisementInterval 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 48) Explicitly Define Processing of Incomming Connections 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes 62) Deprecate BGP Authentication Optional Parameter from RFC1771 63) Clarify MED Removal Text Moved to Consensus: 9) Reference to RFC904 - EGP Protocol 11.1) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 9.1.3 11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2 14) NEXT_HOP to Internal Peer (closed in favor of issue 61) 17) Add References to other RFC-status BGP docs to base spec. 21) Authentication Text Update 22) Scope of Path Attribute Field 27) Allow All Non-Destructive Messages to Refresh Hold Timer 29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In 30) Mention Other Message Types 31) Add References to Additional Options 32.2) BGP Desitnation-based Forwarding Paradigm 33) Add "Optional Non-Transitive" to the MED Section 36) Add Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and Loc-RIB to the Glossary 44) Section 6.2: OPEN message error handling 55) Section 4.3 - Description of AS_PATH length 56) Section 6 - BGP Error Handling 59) Section 4.3 - Move text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.1 to v1.1.1 2002-09-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 5) Direct EBGP Peers Added the "consensus" line in the actual issue description. TOC) Added issue 61 to the table-of-contents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.0 to v1.1 2002-09-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added: 59) Section 4.3 - Move text 60) Section 4.3 - Path Attributes 61) Next Hop for Redistributed Routes Updated: 5) Direct EBGP Peers 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section Moved to Consensus: 5) Direct EBGP Peers 7) Renumber Appendix Sections 43) Clarify the NOTIFICATION Section --PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA29351 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AC477912A4; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7BE2B912A5; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C6A912A4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:19:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 11ECB5DE39; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:19:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8835DE1D for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:19:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA51135; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:18:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200210011818.OAA51135@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Cc: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 11 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:43:26 PDT." <29172853219.20020930104326@psg.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 14:18:57 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <29172853219.20020930104326@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes: > Curtis, > > I disagree here. In routing, node-local decisions affecting the > routing and forwarding tables are as important as the algorithms > describing inter-node routing proto packet exchange. From this > perspective, multipath definitely belongs in the spec. > > Alex I think it would be better off in another document because unlike OSPF multipath: 1. You can go outside the AS and therefore cause huge differences in delay over the N available paths. In OSPF the path delays differences are not as great although you can still mess up TCP. 2. We'd have to put in wording to forbid per packet multipath (there is an RFC on the pitfalls of doing a naive multipath implementation by Dave Thaler and Chris Hopps, RFC-2991). 3. If we mention BGP multipath and we don't forbid multipath which causes massive out of order delivery, then naive vendors are bound to implement it in the "considered harmful" way. I think this one belongs in a separate draft but if you insist, we have to do an adequate job of covering multipath since some forms of it are harmful. We should at least reference RFC-2991, include strong wording about reordering and use of RFC-2991 techniques (src/dst modulo-n-hash being the current favorite) to avoid it, and put limits on what is and is not a reasonable place to put the "cost is equal" decision in the route selection (it must be after IGP cost, step "e" in 9.1.2.2). Curtis > Monday, September 30, 2002, 8:49:17 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > [...] > > Alex, > > > Multipath does not meet the criteria we have previously stated for > > adding something bases on the existance of implementations that > > support it. That criteria was that the added feature was nearly > > universally implemented and deployed among the major parties and that > > implementing it or not affected interoperability. > > > 1. Regardless of whether a particular router has BGP multipath > > enabled or disabled, its external behaviour from the standpoint > > of BGP protocol interaction is completely indistinguishable. > > > 2. In the decision process, after IGP cost is considered, some > > (most) routers are capable of considering BGP routes of equal > > cost for the purpose of forwarding and capable of putting more > > than one forwarding entry (typically a small integer number of > > entries) in the FIB. This is entirely a local matter. > > > 3. The only external sign that BGP multipath is enabled is that > > packets are forwarded differently, but still loop free. > > > Therefore this feature in particular does not belong in the base spec > > and there is no need to even mention it. > > > Curtis Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA29170 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F04AC912A3; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C1ED9912A4; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE79912A3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7E66A5DE23; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C37E5DE1D for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24577; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15004; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7N7PJ>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:37 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F07@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Alex Zinin'" <zinin@psg.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:14:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Alex, The assumption with multi-path in my mind is that both routes have equal "weight" in such attributes as AS-PATH (number of ASs) and so on, and the route selection criteria gets down to the BGP ID/Router ID as the tie breaker. In this case, instead of picking one route we pick both routes and add them to the Routing Table, creating the forwarding multi-path issues. We here are discussing various permutations of this result that could work or not work depending on specifics of the two routes. By adding various rules to limit how we pick/allow the multiple routes, we reduce our chances for hitting topological problems. IMHO, Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:40 PM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: 'Yakov Rekhter'; idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > Jonathan, > > At the minimum, the text would need to say what _BGP_ routes are > considered equal and can be used for load balancing. We don't > want the reader to mistakenly assume that, e.g., paths with > a longer AS_PATH can be used for load-balancing. > > -- > Alex > > Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 8:14:50 AM, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > > If the routes are equal (e.g. only next hop is different) > and the speaker is > > configured to load balance, the routes are used locally to > load balance. > > But the same route would be advertised to other peers as > would be if load > > balance was not configured. So it is out of scope, just as > administrative > > distance is out of scope (decided previously). > > > Of course you could aggregate as described below, but I > don't see the point. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:49 AM > > To: Natale, Jonathan > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > Jonathan, > > >> I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations > that I know of. > > > How do implementations that you know of handle this ? > > > yakov. > > >> Does anybody's implementation do this? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] > >> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > >> To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter > >> Cc: idr@merit.edu > >> Subject: RE: issue 11 > >> > >> The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help > resolve the > >> issue: > >> > >> "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are > >> selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing > >> purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of > all such routes > >> for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP > peers. Route > >> aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." > >> > >> Dimitry > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] > >> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM > >> > To: Yakov Rekhter > >> > Cc: idr@merit.edu > >> > Subject: Re: issue 11 > >> > > >> > > >> > Yakov, > >> > > >> > [...] > >> > >> Multipath is > >> > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing > >> > protocol. There > >> > >> should be a good reason to want something like this > in a separate > >> > >> document. Do we have one in this case? > >> > > >> > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec > completed within > >> > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add > >> > > substantial new material to the spec. > >> > > >> > I share the concern about time. However, the issues > related to best > >> > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be > quite important > >> > from the perspective of interoperability and description > of further > >> > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right > people together > >> > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely > contribute to buying > >> > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff > >> > within a month? > >> > > >> > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best > path selection > >> > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't > really describe > >> > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > >> > > >> > Alex > >> > > >> > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28759 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1798C912A2; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C70B0912A3; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8855D912A2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 753F15DE28; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3D05DE1D for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from popserv3.redback.com (popserv3.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F6D449A2F; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.36.220]) by popserv3.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D517E6C1; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:05:10 -0700 (PDT) To: "Stephen Gill" <gillsr@yahoo.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu, enke@redback.com Subject: Re: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) In-Reply-To: Message from "Stephen Gill" <gillsr@yahoo.com> of "Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:01:04 CDT." <001401c26974$8751e810$1efdfe0a@scooby> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:05:10 -0700 From: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com> Message-Id: <20021001180510.23D517E6C1@popserv3.redback.com> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Steve, > From: "Stephen Gill" <gillsr@yahoo.com> > To: "'Enke Chen'" <enke@redback.com>, > "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> > Cc: <idr@merit.edu> > Subject: RE: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:01:04 -0500 > > Humm. I thought with a missing MED it was prefereable to be treated as > worst not as 0. It was changed a long time ago. Please see the following text in Sect. 9.1.2.2 of the draft: In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function which returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value, i.e. 0. -- Enke > Cisco treats a missing med as 0, and I think Juniper > treats it as worst. Cisco has a knob to change this: bgp bestpath > missing-as-worst. > > -- steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-idr@merit.edu [mailto:owner-idr@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Enke > Chen > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:58 PM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu; enke@redback.com > Subject: Re: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) > > Jonathan: > As the MED value is treated as zero when the MED attribute is missing, > removing the MED attribute is really equivalent to setting the value to > zero. Based on this logic, one can argue that "MED removal" is supported > by multiple vendors. > > However, I do see that the current text can be consolidated and cleaned > up: > > ------------------------ > 5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC > > ... > > A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration > which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a > route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference > of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases > 1 and 2). > > An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the > value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external > link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree > of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision > process phases 1 and 2). > > ------------------------- > > How about this: > > A BGP speaker MUST implement a mechanism based on local configuration > which allows the value of MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute of a received > route > to be altered. This shall be done prior to determining the degree of > preference of the route and performing route selection (decision > process > phases 1 and 2). > > -------------------------- > > -- Enke > > > Message-ID: > <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF9@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.c > om> > > From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> > > To: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:16 -0400 > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > > Content-Type: text/plain > > Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu > > Precedence: bulk > > > > In reference to: > > > > "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration > > which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a > > route" > > > > Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it > cannot. > > > > Juniper??? > > > > Other code??? > > > > Change to "SHOULD"??? > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28676 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0FEFF912A1; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AEBA0912A2; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A251912A1 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 437A65DE28; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4025DE23 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23916; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12710; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7N6YJ>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:06 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F05@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:57 AM > To: Abarbanel, Benjamin > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > Ben, > > > Jonathan: > > > > See Below > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Natale, Jonathan [mailto:JNatale@celoxnetworks.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:15 AM > > > To: 'Yakov Rekhter'; Natale, Jonathan > > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > > > > > > > > If the routes are equal (e.g. only next hop is different) and > > > the speaker is > > > configured to load balance, the routes are used locally to > > > load balance. > > > > It would be smarter to assign the next hop address to a virtual > > interface (e.g. Loopback Interface address) thus if the > peer has two > > physical interfaces to current router, there is only one route. > > Thus the load balancing issue is transparent to the BGP routing > > and only obvious in the forwarding plane. > > And if it is transparent to the BGP routing, then there is no > need to have it in the base spec. Agreed ? > > Yakov. > Agreed, Ben Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28429 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 38C36912A0; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:57:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0405E912A1; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EE4912A0 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id BE7B85DE60; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623105DE5B for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from popserv3.redback.com (popserv3.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41D7449A21; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.36.220]) by popserv3.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227ED7E6C1; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:57:31 -0700 (PDT) To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu, enke@redback.com Subject: Re: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) In-Reply-To: Message from "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> of "Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:23:16 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF9@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 10:57:30 -0700 From: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com> Message-Id: <20021001175734.227ED7E6C1@popserv3.redback.com> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan: As the MED value is treated as zero when the MED attribute is missing, removing the MED attribute is really equivalent to setting the value to zero. Based on this logic, one can argue that "MED removal" is supported by multiple vendors. However, I do see that the current text can be consolidated and cleaned up: ------------------------ 5.1.4 MULTI_EXIT_DISC ... A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route. This MAY be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over an external link. If it does so, it shall do so prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). ------------------------- How about this: A BGP speaker MUST implement a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the value of MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute of a received route to be altered. This shall be done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection (decision process phases 1 and 2). -------------------------- -- Enke > Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF9@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> > From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:16 -0400 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > Content-Type: text/plain > Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu > Precedence: bulk > > In reference to: > > "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration > which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a > route" > > Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it cannot. > > Juniper??? > > Other code??? > > Change to "SHOULD"??? Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA27047 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0B7689129E; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C6E569129F; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D4F9129E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4CB5A5DE62; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07E55DE61 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12MQR>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:18 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF9@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:23:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In reference to: "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route" Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it cannot. Juniper??? Other code??? Change to "SHOULD"??? Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA26652 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 493DF9129D; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1CE129129E; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0C49129D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5B1795DE5E; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55125DE54 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12MNR>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:14:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF7@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Removing MED (New Issue 1.0) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:14:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2696D.FD318D30" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2696D.FD318D30 Content-Type: text/plain In reference to: "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a route" Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it cannot. Juniper??? Other code??? Change to "SHOULD"??? ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2696D.FD318D30 Content-Type: text/html <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} h1 {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.25in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} h2 {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.8in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.3in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, li.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft, div.StyleHeading1Arial12ptLeft {margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-indent:-.25in; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} p.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, li.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered, div.StyleArial22ptBoldCentered {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center; font-size:20.0pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold;} span.EmailStyle19 {font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>In reference to:</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>"A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism based on local configuration</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> which allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute to be removed from a</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> route"</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Does anybody know how this can be done in IOS??? Looks like it cannot.</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Juniper???</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Other code???</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Change to "SHOULD"???</span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2696D.FD318D30-- Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25570 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 56DCB91297; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2471191298; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D70591297 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:48:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 315685DE60; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:48:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A74A5DE5F for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12MHA>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:48:16 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF6@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Alex Zinin'" <zinin@psg.com>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:48:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Or it could say nothing or refer to it and say ~= ..."out of scope" :-) -----Original Message----- From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:40 PM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: 'Yakov Rekhter'; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 Jonathan, At the minimum, the text would need to say what _BGP_ routes are considered equal and can be used for load balancing. We don't want the reader to mistakenly assume that, e.g., paths with a longer AS_PATH can be used for load-balancing. -- Alex Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 8:14:50 AM, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > If the routes are equal (e.g. only next hop is different) and the speaker is > configured to load balance, the routes are used locally to load balance. > But the same route would be advertised to other peers as would be if load > balance was not configured. So it is out of scope, just as administrative > distance is out of scope (decided previously). > Of course you could aggregate as described below, but I don't see the point. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:49 AM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > Jonathan, >> I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations that I know of. > How do implementations that you know of handle this ? > yakov. >> Does anybody's implementation do this? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM >> To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter >> Cc: idr@merit.edu >> Subject: RE: issue 11 >> >> The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the >> issue: >> >> "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are >> selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing >> purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all such routes >> for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route >> aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." >> >> Dimitry >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] >> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM >> > To: Yakov Rekhter >> > Cc: idr@merit.edu >> > Subject: Re: issue 11 >> > >> > >> > Yakov, >> > >> > [...] >> > >> Multipath is >> > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing >> > protocol. There >> > >> should be a good reason to want something like this in a separate >> > >> document. Do we have one in this case? >> > >> > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec completed within >> > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add >> > > substantial new material to the spec. >> > >> > I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best >> > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be quite important >> > from the perspective of interoperability and description of further >> > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right people together >> > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute to buying >> > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff >> > within a month? >> > >> > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection >> > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe >> > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? >> > >> > Alex >> > >> > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25395 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 641F691296; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 298D891297; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EEA91296 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C32C95DE5B; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F5C5DE54 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17wQ8b-000Hyq-00; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:44:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:42:55 -0700 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <154255622085.20021001094255@psg.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In-Reply-To: <200210011556.g91Fuvm63051@merlot.juniper.net> References: <200210011556.g91Fuvm63051@merlot.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, >> It would be smarter to assign the next hop address to a virtual >> interface (e.g. Loopback Interface address) thus if the peer has two >> physical interfaces to current router, there is only one route. >> Thus the load balancing issue is transparent to the BGP routing >> and only obvious in the forwarding plane. > And if it is transparent to the BGP routing, then there is no > need to have it in the base spec. Agreed ? Note that what Ben described above is not BGP multipath, but load-balancing based on IGP multipath, and right, _this_ one doesn't belong in the spec. Alex Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25256 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2DDBD91284; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id F35AE91296; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:42:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C4D91284 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6088D5DE5B; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3093C5DE54 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17wQ5w-000Ht9-00; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:42:00 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:40:10 -0700 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <12255456997.20021001094010@psg.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, At the minimum, the text would need to say what _BGP_ routes are considered equal and can be used for load balancing. We don't want the reader to mistakenly assume that, e.g., paths with a longer AS_PATH can be used for load-balancing. -- Alex Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 8:14:50 AM, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > If the routes are equal (e.g. only next hop is different) and the speaker is > configured to load balance, the routes are used locally to load balance. > But the same route would be advertised to other peers as would be if load > balance was not configured. So it is out of scope, just as administrative > distance is out of scope (decided previously). > Of course you could aggregate as described below, but I don't see the point. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:49 AM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > Jonathan, >> I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations that I know of. > How do implementations that you know of handle this ? > yakov. >> Does anybody's implementation do this? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM >> To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter >> Cc: idr@merit.edu >> Subject: RE: issue 11 >> >> The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the >> issue: >> >> "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are >> selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing >> purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all such routes >> for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route >> aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." >> >> Dimitry >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] >> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM >> > To: Yakov Rekhter >> > Cc: idr@merit.edu >> > Subject: Re: issue 11 >> > >> > >> > Yakov, >> > >> > [...] >> > >> Multipath is >> > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing >> > protocol. There >> > >> should be a good reason to want something like this in a separate >> > >> document. Do we have one in this case? >> > >> > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec completed within >> > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add >> > > substantial new material to the spec. >> > >> > I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best >> > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be quite important >> > from the perspective of interoperability and description of further >> > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right people together >> > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute to buying >> > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff >> > within a month? >> > >> > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection >> > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe >> > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? >> > >> > Alex >> > >> > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25116 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3A95B91225; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 005B191284; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12C791225 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7DEB75DE5B; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538E45DE54 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17wQ3J-000Hom-00; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:39:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:37:27 -0700 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <113255294634.20021001093727@psg.com> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAED@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAED@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Besides, it doesn't say anything about how the routes are selected. -- Alex Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 5:56:07 AM, Natale, Jonathan wrote: > I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations that I know of. > Does anybody's implementation do this? > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11 > The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the > issue: > "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are > selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing > purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all such routes > for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route > aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." > Dimitry Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA24044 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8D24F9125A; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 58D4491284; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0C39125A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 05FDE5DE58; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758985DE55 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g91GDFv86828; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:13:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g91GDCG86821; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:13:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g91GDC501054; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:13:12 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@axiowave.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 Message-ID: <20021001121311.A819@nexthop.com> References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAED@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> <001e01c26964$63c3fd30$01ffff0a@QUICK> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <001e01c26964$63c3fd30$01ffff0a@QUICK>; from dhaskin@axiowave.com on Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 12:05:35PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 12:05:35PM -0400, Dimitry Haskin wrote: > As far as I aware, this is what has been effectively implemented when > multiple E-BGP routes to the same prefix are used for load balancing. To > be precise, as far as I know, those implementations restrict multi-path > eligibility to peers in the same neighboring AS so that routes may only > differ in the next hop attribute. If router A peers with router X and Y in a neighboring AS, then it is quite possible for a given prefix D to have two completely different sets of path attributes. At the very least, the AS_PATH may differ and thus the loop properties will differ as well. If you don't advertise an aggregated AS_PATH (as one suggestion made), then you can do Bad Things. If you make sure that at the very least the AS_PATHs are equivalent, then thats at least one problem thats dealt with. > Hence, in this restricted case the > aggregate would look exactly the same as components except that if > components differ in the next-hop attribute, That'd work. > the aggregate route should > be advertised with the local address of the speaker. And that too. > I don't mind if the multi-path issues are kept out of the document. But > if there is insistence to provide some guidance, I hoped that a general > conceptual statement could be sufficient. IMO, its best if we just left the issue of multi-path forwarding out of the base spec as black magic. We can publish the Necronomicon later. > Dimitry -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23607 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 610539121B; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 28DA69125A; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D079121B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id BB3AF5DE4A; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFE45DD8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from QUICK ([24.62.129.118]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20021001160541.ZQD17535.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@QUICK>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:05:41 +0000 From: "Dimitry Haskin" <dhaskin@axiowave.com> To: "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, <idr@merit.edu> Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:05:35 -0400 Message-ID: <001e01c26964$63c3fd30$01ffff0a@QUICK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAED@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk As far as I aware, this is what has been effectively implemented when multiple E-BGP routes to the same prefix are used for load balancing. To be precise, as far as I know, those implementations restrict multi-path eligibility to peers in the same neighboring AS so that routes may only differ in the next hop attribute. Hence, in this restricted case the aggregate would look exactly the same as components except that if components differ in the next-hop attribute, the aggregate route should be advertised with the local address of the speaker. The proposed paragraph tries to be more general in its guidance for multi-path use and to extend to the cases when routes to different ASs are used for multi-path forwarding. After all if a BGP speaker chooses to advertise a single route even when multiple component routes are used for local forwarding, this in effect constitutes an aggregation -- even if the aggregate and components have the same prefix. As such, it should comply with aggregation rules that have been defined to provide loop-free routing. I don't mind if the multi-path issues are kept out of the document. But if there is insistence to provide some guidance, I hoped that a general conceptual statement could be sufficient. Regards, Dimitry > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-idr@merit.edu [mailto:owner-idr@merit.edu] On Behalf Of > Natale, Jonathan > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:56 AM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations that I know of. > Does anybody's implementation do this? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the > issue: > > "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are > selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing > purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all such routes > for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route > aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." > > Dimitry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM > > To: Yakov Rekhter > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > > > > Yakov, > > > > [...] > > >> Multipath is > > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing > > protocol. There > > >> should be a good reason to want something like this in a separate > > >> document. Do we have one in this case? > > > > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec completed within > > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add > > > substantial new material to the spec. > > > > I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best > > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be quite important > > from the perspective of interoperability and description of further > > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right people together > > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute to buying > > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff > > within a month? > > > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > > > Alex > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23331 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:57:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DE96D91295; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AE32C91296; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F77291295 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4DDE45DD8E; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47EB5DE29 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g91Fuvm63051; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210011556.g91Fuvm63051@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:33:13 EDT." <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F04@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <85927.1033487817.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 08:56:57 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Ben, > Jonathan: > > See Below > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Natale, Jonathan [mailto:JNatale@celoxnetworks.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:15 AM > > To: 'Yakov Rekhter'; Natale, Jonathan > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > > > > > If the routes are equal (e.g. only next hop is different) and > > the speaker is > > configured to load balance, the routes are used locally to > > load balance. > > It would be smarter to assign the next hop address to a virtual > interface (e.g. Loopback Interface address) thus if the peer has two > physical interfaces to current router, there is only one route. > Thus the load balancing issue is transparent to the BGP routing > and only obvious in the forwarding plane. And if it is transparent to the BGP routing, then there is no need to have it in the base spec. Agreed ? Yakov. Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22471 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B319791294; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7CA5F91295; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9B191294 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4B4C15DE53; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE55D5DE29 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14402; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14791; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7N4VB>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:13 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F04@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Natale, Jonathan'" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>, "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:33:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan: See Below > -----Original Message----- > From: Natale, Jonathan [mailto:JNatale@celoxnetworks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:15 AM > To: 'Yakov Rekhter'; Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > > If the routes are equal (e.g. only next hop is different) and > the speaker is > configured to load balance, the routes are used locally to > load balance. It would be smarter to assign the next hop address to a virtual interface (e.g. Loopback Interface address) thus if the peer has two physical interfaces to current router, there is only one route. Thus the load balancing issue is transparent to the BGP routing and only obvious in the forwarding plane. Also, this is localized to the load balancing to be contained between the current router and an adjacent router. Once we get into load balancing between the current router and different routers we get into all kinds of what if conditions. Just another twist to solving load balancing issues. > But the same route would be advertised to other peers as > would be if load > balance was not configured. So it is out of scope, just as > administrative > distance is out of scope (decided previously). > So the current peer advertises two routes with same prefix and different next hops. Would'nt the second route overtake the first route in the peer's routing table such that there will only be one route present in the peer's routing table? If so, how will that work for load balancing? > Of course you could aggregate as described below, but I don't > see the point. > > Aggegation is good for reducing routing table size, but not to solve multi-path issues. IMHO. Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:49 AM > To: Natale, Jonathan > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > Jonathan, > > > I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations > that I know of. > > How do implementations that you know of handle this ? > > yakov. > > > Does anybody's implementation do this? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > > > The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help > resolve the > > issue: > > > > "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are > > selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing > > purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of > all such routes > > for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route > > aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." > > > > Dimitry > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM > > > To: Yakov Rekhter > > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > > > > > > > Yakov, > > > > > > [...] > > > >> Multipath is > > > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing > > > protocol. There > > > >> should be a good reason to want something like this > in a separate > > > >> document. Do we have one in this case? > > > > > > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec > completed within > > > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add > > > > substantial new material to the spec. > > > > > > I share the concern about time. However, the issues > related to best > > > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be > quite important > > > from the perspective of interoperability and description > of further > > > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right > people together > > > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely > contribute to buying > > > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff > > > within a month? > > > > > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best > path selection > > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't > really describe > > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21748 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9F8C591292; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 021FE91294; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990FB91292 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 82FB85DE55; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9865DE54 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12LWN>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:14:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAF1@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:14:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk If the routes are equal (e.g. only next hop is different) and the speaker is configured to load balance, the routes are used locally to load balance. But the same route would be advertised to other peers as would be if load balance was not configured. So it is out of scope, just as administrative distance is out of scope (decided previously). Of course you could aggregate as described below, but I don't see the point. -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:49 AM To: Natale, Jonathan Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 Jonathan, > I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations that I know of. How do implementations that you know of handle this ? yakov. > Does anybody's implementation do this? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the > issue: > > "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are > selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing > purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all such routes > for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route > aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." > > Dimitry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM > > To: Yakov Rekhter > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > > > > Yakov, > > > > [...] > > >> Multipath is > > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing > > protocol. There > > >> should be a good reason to want something like this in a separate > > >> document. Do we have one in this case? > > > > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec completed within > > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add > > > substantial new material to the spec. > > > > I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best > > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be quite important > > from the perspective of interoperability and description of further > > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right people together > > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute to buying > > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff > > within a month? > > > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > > > Alex > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20585 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:48:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5AEAD9128F; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2A7E991290; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CD09128F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B12695DE24; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E555DE16 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g91EmUm58165; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:48:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200210011448.g91EmUm58165@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 11 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Oct 2002 08:56:07 EDT." <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAED@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <67201.1033483710.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 07:48:30 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jonathan, > I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations that I know of. How do implementations that you know of handle this ? yakov. > Does anybody's implementation do this? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the > issue: > > "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are > selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing > purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all such routes > for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route > aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." > > Dimitry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM > > To: Yakov Rekhter > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > > > > Yakov, > > > > [...] > > >> Multipath is > > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing > > protocol. There > > >> should be a good reason to want something like this in a separate > > >> document. Do we have one in this case? > > > > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec completed within > > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add > > > substantial new material to the spec. > > > > I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best > > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be quite important > > from the perspective of interoperability and description of further > > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right people together > > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute to buying > > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff > > within a month? > > > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > > > Alex > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19537 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7071D9128D; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 442E89128F; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF6E9128D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 136A75DE4C; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880535DE48 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09002; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:23:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28242; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:22:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7NQG2>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:22:27 -0400 Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2F03@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com> From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> To: "'Dimitry Haskin'" <dhaskin@axiowave.com>, "'Alex Zinin'" <zinin@psg.com>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:22:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Dimitry: Although forming an aggregate may solve the problem of unpredictable route path forwarding. It will cause some attributes to be lost and thus not offer the peer the proper networking visibility. If we want to solve the multipath issue we must add rules for example, it works reliable well if the same AS providor is providing the multipath routes from its various links/routers. Else, it will be less deterministic and potentially prone to problems such as routing loops and/or degradation of latency. But in a nutshell I think Yakov does not want to start this topic here and now. Although a good item to discuss in future revisions and possibly solve. Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: RE: issue 11 > > > The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the > issue: > > "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are > selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing > purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all > such routes > for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route > aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." > > Dimitry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM > > To: Yakov Rekhter > > Cc: idr@merit.edu > > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > > > > Yakov, > > > > [...] > > >> Multipath is > > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing > > protocol. There > > >> should be a good reason to want something like this in > a separate > > >> document. Do we have one in this case? > > > > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec > completed within > > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add > > > substantial new material to the spec. > > > > I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best > > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be > quite important > > from the perspective of interoperability and description of further > > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right > people together > > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute > to buying > > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff > > within a month? > > > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best > path selection > > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe > > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > > > Alex > > > > > Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA15500 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 416959123D; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0B36F91240; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA1E9123D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6DC525DE44; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (celox-ma1-imap1.celoxnetworks.com [12.40.60.233]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1982E5DE42 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBC12LCL>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:11 -0400 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAED@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:56:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations that I know of. Does anybody's implementation do this? -----Original Message----- From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: issue 11 The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the issue: "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all such routes for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2." Dimitry > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:21 PM > To: Yakov Rekhter > Cc: idr@merit.edu > Subject: Re: issue 11 > > > Yakov, > > [...] > >> Multipath is > >> something that is normally in the heart of a routing > protocol. There > >> should be a good reason to want something like this in a separate > >> document. Do we have one in this case? > > > Time. If we are interested in getting the base spec completed within > > the timeframe outlined in the current charter, we can't add > > substantial new material to the spec. > > I share the concern about time. However, the issues related to best > path calculation, multipath included, seem to me to be quite important > from the perspective of interoperability and description of further > extensions. Maybe if we the chairs could get the right people together > and facilitate the process (ADs would definitely contribute to buying > the libations), such a design team could come up with solid stuff > within a month? > > BTW, regarding the part of the spec describing the best path selection > algo, I remember there was a concern that it didn't really describe > what vendors actually did. Is it still the case? > > Alex > >
- Issue 47 Susan Hares
- draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt Parag Deshpande