Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy - (6/6 to 6/20/2016)

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors, IDR group, 

I'd like to start by thanking you for putting thought and time into the
route leak problem space. It is encouring to see fellow operators engage
with the IETF community to address actual, day to day issues.

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:40:19PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy.
> You can find the draft at: 
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy/.
> 
> In your comments on adopting this draft, please indicate: 
> 
> 1)      "Support" or "no Support" 

No support.

> 2)      Do you feel this is a way to prevent route leaks? 

It certainly is a way.

> 3)      Are there any deployment issues that might prevent deployment
> of this enhancement to BGP Open? 

I do not think that the OPEN moment in the lifecycle of a BGP session is
the appropiate place for policy constructs like this. In practise it is
probably not an issue when you have to flap a BGP session to change the
relation between two ASNs, but it would be nice if this is not required
(like today on most platforms).

Secondly (and more importantly), the roles are not necessarily a BGP
session-specific characteristic, but rather a prefix-specific property.
The proposed OPEN method does not provide for this level granularity if
I am reading it correctly. The method would affect all prefixes exchange
over a BGP session, without exception.

> 4) Does this interact with
> draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation? 

Yes, in terms of the problem being addressed.

Kind regards,

Job