IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound-02.txt

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 23 April 2021 22:28 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 D30D93A1201 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 MEpOzsRVemUp for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19B713A1200 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id u25so18959382ljg.7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AwRv3ID7tYLvZaHHwlWkO44zl4bazUhiJ1dUzL0po58=; b=Zn62lKk3gYxalzH/JfwuExk6Ig/d25A2iSt8/Fly3igErFs43YkbvSYN6NkiWc5VsR ysb+fppYLnHicDBom/7o4Xhgh+C4Hsg8wOkhT5C0I6Z3xejldRAi9ERWPf6nWjRB/yxY U08Tzs4t1srgCzgG3RAh00SqY4xPzsAwXb/tPJPlWDRcPfTdJkYxzPcjoOeNDUNuMz4E xiMMhJVA3mDCnbgLtR5Vt3DHvOofYuMDbTvnoFgY3VHqld0Hm17aAmsJUyXtPsfzqKEv Ljk+WWRKaD6O7fr+/8xtAPIVC4dM77PrxfhqnuXZR8jaMx3OaYOTKqU3lQEIIEF/yH/w 1PoA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AwRv3ID7tYLvZaHHwlWkO44zl4bazUhiJ1dUzL0po58=; b=mVeltT1pMuKmXzIXWaDb8hN7X0VeOi3fpqM8BnYnHshNmxInA/VJBQxyectpiUJrNo sYnAuAqh5Bf38ZC3YXGEBJg2HmarrBs2awhShl3ezZaXSOB0YqG+QB7pE2LZYHsYN9Zz fnhswiZWxG5DsylkVX7tBy8VjEXN/7Jvj5z40GLOLu+ZX3F5U8ILRxasz0lBUs8KN9iK 6QS9+aDRmLCTyGP0ENyIGEAeDd5YOnMCqYjdex+hHUEPz9LpnVkpBGfy5sRvCDzC0WC0 yhOen619fMGuijv7IyScXfxexk33dUCJQNfReyYxuJW07BF7FATcsIMNrEIU5Y5FrClc 5EZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jSfCU/mXVCLSQUl4MwiArgESezK/fe734a1Z+OYaV7Jes3sm9 z1lp18siKyAEPAUrKOb+QULl9cTVkYj6rrRYUhHoHg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwYfF1XOEJg232MEOEvNjKYnAZiISrvNn35q0BA1qIUooGvwGLbh8J/OsovcDzg/pq7Aej6DmIsbBC6CJIVVzw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:97c5:: with SMTP id m5mr4005814ljj.321.1619216920744; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161843563034.11054.13811966622190622752@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOj+MMH=cCgtn7cL=HvOjQOMH1B9tmjOYOT04jXE9oky4SuevQ@mail.gmail.com> <YHhJTB51/joiz9Pg@snel> <CAOj+MMEFOGm=hCQcZNAUoN8vsPeVT3gqnjsQihUMJo4AOObZfw@mail.gmail.com> <YINENaRdV/EP4Wm9@shrubbery.net>
In-Reply-To: <YINENaRdV/EP4Wm9@shrubbery.net>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:28:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGH8oLdtWje=X2b3WC5DF72X6TEYuU-x2Df-UtDPA21Ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
Cc: Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, max@stucchi.ch, maelmans@juniper.net, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000602aa205c0ab51df"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T0HVxIohzFI3_UQAHxALA2hJJIw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound-02.txt
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, 23 Apr 2021 22:28:49 -0000

Ok good point.

But while I agree it seems that this proves that we perhaps need to have
two different inbound prefix limit parameters.

One which can protect the router from collapse - the other one which can be
custom crafted by the operator to accommodate his per peer policy.

Former would be applied pre soft-in while the latter after it.

Not trying to make it too complex - but just to reflect operationally
what's out in the wild already. If you have a single limit and apply it pre
soft-in you simply break it.

Thx,
R.


On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 12:03 AM heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:

> Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 04:34:35PM +0200, Robert Raszuk:
> > The observation I am trying to make is that IMHO soft in is not really a
> > Pre Policy in a sense that you must not apply Prefix Limit to it.
> Otherwise
> > the entire idea of soft-in becomes questionable.
>
> the rib that soft reconfig uses has to be subject to a limit; without that,
> the device is not entirely protected from memory exhaustion from a massive
> leak (eg: every possible /128).
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email