IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 15 June 2016 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B4B12D790; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kzsneBqPN5nC; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B0A612D8EB; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3597; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1466007226; x=1467216826; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=shecUaSUbDfAYAWC4uhzdPmd1kK72c+dxLrDycJ+UiQ=; b=NEihUIO24ip5DlPXLxt8xsBEu4zz3oKSkgfVskDI5F2woJOPTo4hqCAb 0bjE7P7ZsweO0cEHs2zduD/a7AZonNfiiGc9tTp2tny3zuSr15/LNoKts MEjuvL/+F/TyUNkkXg8XTqnpla0YXumcZa2J4jlf2dico6HtASWkFu3Zg M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,476,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="638034633"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jun 2016 16:13:44 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5FGDiiP028135; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:13:44 GMT
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
References: <20160615150104.20296.66089.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+b+ERkmOfVFrBp52zNg=iFVejKnsiUXhiH_D-=wRj77VOyy=g@mail.gmail.com> <D386DB26.12E3F0%aretana@cisco.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <2bdc68fc-2c4c-ac3f-a970-0a12c3cb1778@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 18:13:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D386DB26.12E3F0%aretana@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8C3AD13072818DDD839C677A"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OjPJMez0WyZzGRKQ4v9_pojqxtI>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:13:50 -0000

On 6/15/2016 5:16 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> On 6/15/16, 10:04 AM, "rraszuk@gmail.com <mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com> on 
> behalf of Robert Raszuk" <rraszuk@gmail.com <mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com> 
> on behalf of robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
>
>     It is quite common to see IX participants having direct peerings
>     as well as peerings via RS. All is driven by BGP policies both at
>     the peering routers directly as well as on the RS.
>
>
> Agreed.  To Benoit's point, it would be nice to clarify the meaning of 
> the different line types in Figure 1, and not leave it up to 
> interpretation.
Yes, and a sentence stressing that mlpe and blp sessions are not 
inconsistent in an IXP would be useful IMO.

Regards, Benoit
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
> .

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email