Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 15 March 2017 19:44 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 DEE121317F5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 WEIQKlNEg9Iz for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1CC13177F for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B05891E33B; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:50:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:50:50 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170315195050.GT12864@pfrc.org>
References: <20170314213607.GH12864@pfrc.org> <20170314214832.s3k37p27y7xfpfsv@Vurt.local> <CA+b+ERmLDNzF=TofW=w1OwUzeLGUc-3muMckHTH6Rs=c8rc5bQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170314223333.bw3caxfn34y6zlb7@Vurt.local> <CA+b+ERmMOyqb8HFtNXyDr8e+MNxA7EWmJFukUNgSjAU+69f5CA@mail.gmail.com> <20170314225855.GN12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERkt6MJUPR-4WX0LYZ9CG1FoNX-g4=hnqFB9iQy8WfKOww@mail.gmail.com> <20170315000326.GO12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERmWUL-pVwjW8Vq+Vz8UzYDpcVBZxxhtM6WFqhmG+r35WA@mail.gmail.com> <58C95A05.3030107@foobar.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <58C95A05.3030107@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YCbl2on48hA8zgp60E6fC0YCyxc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:44:40 -0000

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:13:09PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > Has that approach been considered here
> 
> I have seen people attempt IGPs at IXPs before.  It was hilarious.
> 
> It wasn't intended to be hilarious.

The reasons for the hilarity might not be obvious to some here.  Some of
them include:
- Effectively an NBMA environment that most software wants to pick up as a
  broadcast environment... and the protocols break when the L2 goes awry.
- IXPs tend to get a rather entertaining mish-mash of equipment... and thus
  bugs.
- IGPs really like to have a consistent map and aren't happy when the LSDB
  isn't consistent for various reasons. (See some above.)
- Security of IGP with multiple participant? Um, no.

Please share others. :-)

-- Jeff