[Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-15.txt
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 28 August 2024 15:20 UTC
Return-Path: <jhaas@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 9B5DCC165518 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 08:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gZckntJhkhR2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 08:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E32DC180B76 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 08:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (172-125-100-52.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [172.125.100.52]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 264631E2D5; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.8\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <Zs8hiBX9Y8slMnpU@diehard.n-r-g.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:20:14 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F55EBF5B-D150-44D0-B656-698B0978619D@pfrc.org>
References: <172409169774.1909130.7745685666245560135@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k> <ZsSaLa0WH8tGu5rY@diehard.n-r-g.com> <BDDB8EC7-9883-4769-AA8D-7E1DC3130A7F@pfrc.org> <Zs8hiBX9Y8slMnpU@diehard.n-r-g.com>
To: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.8)
Message-ID-Hash: ELLHLLIVWDVBML3CRYRKW6TSLASLPCTD
X-Message-ID-Hash: ELLHLLIVWDVBML3CRYRKW6TSLASLPCTD
X-MailFrom: jhaas@pfrc.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-15.txt
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SVvdXdX_bKps-6wv8iLuNuLzYuU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>
Claudio, > On Aug 28, 2024, at 9:09 AM, Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote: >> >> Speaking for myself but nodding toward my chair hat, I don't know that >> we can ever do that. You can proclaim all you want that "we'll never do >> 2 byte" but implementations will still need to deal with as4-path for >> time to come. > > Nodding towards your chair hat, it would be good if IDR had a plan to > finish this transition in finite time. Other security critical protocols > realized that and started to deprecate a lot of old features. Just look at > how SSH and SSL/TLS do that. The likely answer there is "bgp-5". You'll note a trend in some of the list discussion about the impacts of various transition and scoping mechanisms are happening partly to describe issues with bgp-4 and what we can do about those. We might successfully evolve a set of mechanisms that avoid the version bump. We've done so successfully for years. We'll see. > I know it will take time but by having a plan and a clear goal will give > vendors an incentive to finally priorize RFC6738 support in their roadmap. If this isn't a typo, I'm unclear how this specific IKEv2 mechanism addresses the IP routing bootstrapping issues identified by the KARP working group some years ago. > >> That said, as a vendor, I'm happy to support knobs that say "don't let >> peering come up unless 4-byte is negotiated". Sadly, we have knobs that >> do the opposite. > > We implemented that exactly for this reason. Someone needs to start doing > this and put light pressure onto all those systems that did not update > their BGP implementation in the last 10+ years. > Also everyone should default to 4byte sessions by default (it seems that > is still not the case). The short form of this is when implementations start deleting 2-byte capable code and don't permit sessions to come up without the 4byte capability, you'll have achieved your victory condition. Go forth and do so in your stack. :-) -- Jeff
- [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set… internet-drafts
- [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as… Claudio Jeker
- [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as… Jeffrey Haas
- [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as… Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
- [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as… Jeffrey Haas
- [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as… Claudio Jeker
- [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as… Jeffrey Haas
- [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as… Claudio Jeker
- [Idr] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as… Jeffrey Haas