IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 26 May 2016 20:13 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 043D412D931 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 JjMNbSA3hRcH for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E706712D95D for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 266921E335; Thu, 26 May 2016 16:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:19:21 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Message-ID: <20160526201921.GF10531@pfrc.org>
References: <SN1PR09MB1134E093A4939317439A5E5C84400@SN1PR09MB1134.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ERmeQ54kpgtAnnkEGuBFZb6Nc4xNyO3OLHufv-gYdNkyKg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERmeQ54kpgtAnnkEGuBFZb6Nc4xNyO3OLHufv-gYdNkyKg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T-1ZiIsMh4qwNWFO-QBhBwOPiBE>
Cc: Keyur Patel <keyupate@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 20:13:57 -0000

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:28:10PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Well there are other uses for larger BGP message size.
> 
> Some claim that very long AS_PATH prepend happens today.

For my part, I tend to see this as a DoS on the routing system.  I think a
few implementations even simply consider the path "bad" once it gets too
big. 

> Yet some other folks would like to use flow spec with a lot of policy to be
> pushed around (for example some ACLs can be very very long today).

This case would be handy, especially if we get to some of these more
"flowspec as SDN" use cases.

One place we know we have desired use is large lists of route-target
extended communities.  While I think cases that are in danger of overflowing
RT lists imply some need to engineer the network differently, it does seem
to be a common issue. :-)

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email