Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 27 October 2011 21:49 UTC
Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E1B21F84AF for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bc1T+XOseZpc for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail37.opentransfer.com (mail37.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 747B621F84AE for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28608 invoked by uid 399); 27 Oct 2011 21:49:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?216.69.69.179?) (216.69.69.179) by mail37.opentransfer.com with SMTP; 27 Oct 2011 21:49:28 -0000
Message-ID: <4EA9D1EA.3020109@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:49:30 +0200
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
References: <4EA1F0FB.3090100@raszuk.net> <4EA487E4.2040201@raszuk.net> <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550FA20750@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <4EA84254.9000400@raszuk.net> <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550FA20F79@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550FA20F79@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:49:30 -0000
Hello Jim, L3VPN RT assignment is how you define a VPN policy. Of course if you misconfigure policy the system will take it and execute accordingly. That is in fact a L3VPN drawback not something to be proud of. Customers subscribing to L3VPN service must trust provider how their routes are distributed by SP and to whom else are exported. I do know for a fact that some customers just do not trust SP to handle their route distribution. Those customers either ask for L2VPN service or purchase their transit links directly. RT Constrain - I do not see how this can cause wrong construction of VPN distribution graph when deployed partially. Basically PEs which do not support RT-Constrain will get full set of VPNv4 routes and RRs which such PEs are connected to will need to keep all of them. I do not see any issue if you just enable RT constrain on one PE and push RT routes from such PE to RR(s). Please illustrate a scenario where partially deployed RT Constrain results in "VPN distribution graph will be incorrectly built". Maybe we have missed something ... > It is the responsibility of the network designers to determine how to > deploy powerful technology into their networks. I could perhaps agree with that statement in general. However when you are injecting STALE routes to your EBGP peers you have zero control over their network. Best regards, R. > Robert, > > To be honest I do not agree and am confused by your comments.. There > are many specifications that demand correct deployment in a network > to prevent unwanted behavior. Some immediate examples come to mind: > > L3VPN. If the operator mis-configures RTs or stitches incorrectly VPN > pollution can easily occur. There is no protection that I know of in > the draft to prevent this. > > RT Constrain. If incorrectly deployed in a network with devices that > do and don't support the VPN distribution graph will be incorrectly > built. This will result in customers VPN being compromised. The draft > does not prevent this. > > It is the responsibility of the network designers to determine how to > deploy powerful technology into their networks. Part of this is to > ensure that we do not create a "real network issue if not done > carefully ". We do not have the luxury of not being careful. > Generally speaking when introducing technology with new capability > the expectation is that the network architects/designers understand > the technology and deploy it correctly. > > Thanks, Jim Uttaro > > -----Original Message----- From: Robert Raszuk > [mailto:robert@raszuk.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 1:25 PM > To: UTTARO, JAMES Cc: idr@ietf.org List Subject: Re: [Idr] > draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 > > Jim, > > When one during design phase of a routing protocol or routing > protocol extension or modification to it already realizes that > enabling such feature may cause real network issue if not done > carefully - that should trigger the alarm to rethink the solution and > explore alternative approaches to the problem space. > > We as operators have already hard time to relate enabling a feature > within our intradomain boundaries to make sure such rollout is > network wide. Here you are asking for the same level of awareness > across ebgp boundaries. This is practically unrealistic IMHO. > > Back to the proposal ... I think that if anything needs to be done is > to employ per prefix GR with longer and locally configurable timer. > That would address information persistence across direct IBGP > sessions. > > On the RRs use case of this draft we may perhaps agree to disagree, > but I do not see large enough probability of correctly engineered RR > plane to experience simultaneous multiple ibgp session drops. If that > happens the RR placement, platforms or deployment model should be > re-engineered. > > Summary .. I do not think that IDR WG should adopt this document. > Just adding a warning to the deployment section is not sufficient. > > Best regards, R.
- [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Enke Chen
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Enke Chen
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Jakob Heitz
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Jakob Heitz
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Eric Rosen
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Jakob Heitz
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00:Sec… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00: Se… Eric Rosen
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Russ White
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00 bruno.decraene