Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ?

Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> Thu, 01 December 2011 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
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 449C911E8141 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:51:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HJoHxujpadyB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E7611E8129 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pB1MpmxC030511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:51:49 -0600
Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.20]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 17:51:48 -0500
From: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
To: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:51:47 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ?
Thread-Index: Acywdu+jhz14xfHFTSSkgTz3lWFsWgABJ+fw
Message-ID: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF6181C2562C4@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <7E27D7DD-8A61-43E8-904E-DEDB3B2D2C92@kumari.net> <14DD6B3A-B114-4F42-B6D0-37CC377D28C5@juniper.net> <4EC06F20.9020906@cisco.com> <4897DDFA-095B-45BA-82F1-2FBC45747BA0@kumari.net> <CAL9jLaYgu-OFgF2LOKCQXJ+GuYJKEaGRrpfH-ViRzOwW68+Rtg@mail.gmail.com> <5A106376-42BC-404B-8460-BBF415049943@kumari.net> <4ED7FD2D.9000009@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4ED7FD2D.9000009@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF6181C2562C4EUSAACMS0701e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 01 Dec 2011 22:51:53 -0000

+1

Let's keep error condition and error handling separately

Regards,
Jeff

From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Enke Chen
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Warren Kumari
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ?


Warren:



I do not agree with the new text in the draft:



----

   This document specifies that a BGP speaker MUST NOT originate or

   propagate a route with an AS number of zero.  If a BGP speaker

   receives a route which has an AS number of zero in the AS_PATH (or

   AS4_PATH) attribute, it SHOULD be logged and treated as a WITHDRAW.

   This same behavior applies to routes containing zero as the

   Aggregator or AS4 Aggregator.
-----

The presence of AS 0 is considered as an error.  The handling of the error condition should be specific to that attribute.  That is:

   o For the AS4_PATH and AS4_AGGREGATOR, the action is "attribute discard" as specified in the rfc4893bis.

   o For the AGGREGATOR, the action is also "attribute discard" as specified in draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-00.txt


I still think and continue to recommend that you merely describe that AS 0 is an error condition in the draft, and let the error handling draft do the rest, as I suggested before:



   An UPDATE message that contains the AS number of zero in the AS-PATH attribute

   MUST be considered as malformed, and be handled by the procedures specified in

   draft-ietf-idr-optional-transitive-04.txt

-- Enke

On 12/1/11 1:50 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:

[ Changed subject to reflect new title ]





On Dec 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:



On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net><mailto:warren@kumari.net> wrote:



On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Enke Chen wrote:



Support, but with the following suggestions:



1) Nit: change "bgp listener" to "bgp speaker".



Thank you, done.





2) The following language is not very precise.  Due to the incremental nature, we will need to remove the existing route too.



-----

   a BGP

   listener MUST NOT accept an announcement which has an AS number of

   zero in the AS-PATH attribute, and SHOULD log the fact that it has

   done so.

-----



   How about the following:



   An UPDATE message that contains the AS number of zero in the AS-PATH attribute

   MUST be considered as malformed, and be handled by the procedures specified in



draft-ietf-idr-optional-transitive-04.txt



3) If this draft is adopted, we should also add AS 0 as one of the error conditions in

rfc4893bis.



John also provided some text for that section and Keyur suggested that we log and treat as a WITHDRAW.



This would read as:

"This document specifies that a BGP speaker MUST NOT originate or propagate a route with an AS number of zero.  If a BGP speaker receives a route which has an AS number of zero in the AS_PATH attribute, it SHOULD be logged and treated as a WITHDRAW."





a question came up recently (today) on nanog about how AS0 should be

treated wrt AGGREGATOR attributes... Should this say use of AS0

anywhere (make a list perhaps?) is verboten? (or was that assumed

already?)



Actually Keyur Patel already pointed out the Aggregator (and AS4 Aggregator) attribute issue, and I included text in the WG version of the doc, which I posted recently (although I have just realized that I entered the text as "Aggregator" and not "AGGREGATOR", same for AS4...)



Which reminds me -- would folk please review draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ) and provide feedback?

I *think* that I incorporated everyones comments, although I accidentally overwrote the changed version with an older version (never edit a file in two editors at once :-)) and so may have missed some...



W





This avoids having a normative reverence to the optional-transitive draft and is (IMO) a little clearer. It also saves optional-transitive from referencing this, and so we avoid the deadlock...



Thoughts?



W







Thanks.   -- Enke





On 10/28/11 1:51 PM, John Scudder wrote:

Folks,



Please send comments to the list prior to the IDR meeting on November 15.



Thanks,



--John



On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:





Hello IDRites,



I would like to draw your attention to draft-wkumari-idr-as0-01.txt  (

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-idr-as0-01

 ) - I am asking that this draft be considered for WG adoption.





I have already received some feedback, mainly suggesting:



- Add a text for AS number 0 as a reserved in Aggregator and AS4

Aggregator attribute



- Add text for AS number 0 as a reserved value in communities and

extended communities. (RFC 1997 and Four-octet AS Specific Extended

Communities)



Also suggested was providing a little more information on what to do it you do receive a route containing AS0  (more descriptive than just "MUST NOT accept" (for example, stating that it should be "excluded from the Phase 2 decision function")).



Anyway, I would value your feedback and input.



W







_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list



Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list



Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr





_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr



_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr