Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 14 June 2019 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5A912041D; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2znr4g8gq3JO; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDF712041C; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0552C1E2F1; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:47:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:47:43 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190614154743.GL23231@pfrc.org>
References: <A68BF050-9846-4E14-918D-297548E078A2@juniper.net> <99A607F0-84C5-4D3D-99EF-36B733DE205A@tix.at> <20190613205310.GI23231@pfrc.org> <374ACD0E-45BC-4416-AE8B-8D5C1AF6535D@tix.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <374ACD0E-45BC-4416-AE8B-8D5C1AF6535D@tix.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/RCy2YP_-1tJT4LdcpTiP1YV0tgs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:46:41 -0000

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:54:22PM +0200, Christoph Loibl wrote:
> I have no lab at hand (now) - but I am really curios how ie. Juniper (also
> other vendors) actually validate FS without a destination-prefix component
> (to be honest, I never tried this - but it is supposed to be easily
> verified).

I will somewhat coyly note that John's text does not come out of pure
protocol pedantry. :-)

Juniper's implementation doesn't do useful things when the dest-prefix is
absence and validation is on.  This was noted during some internal testing.
When we were approached for "what should we do, it's not in the spec", the
proposed text arose out of internal discussion. (Including "well, it's
effectively 0/0.)

The pedantic behavior would be to say "it's 0/0", but it leads to the
"originate default" as an answer.  This is not behavior we'd operationally
encourage and thus we are having this discussion.

-- Jeff