Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04.txt

Juan Alcaide <jalcaide@cisco.com> Thu, 16 April 2015 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jalcaide@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6F61A8ABD for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 B--Ht6EoXa9T for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D2E71A8AB6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1911; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429219724; x=1430429324; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version:content-id; bh=WeLPBCUm3fz4MnyfyrUL9Pnxou8PonfpJTjTZ8hBQ6A=; b=gRrU7es5W0xU3jwNJ9xB6iPPTP9NbsQAs5V2UJFJWzoU3QmmH3vjF0za Ue6zZRd14IRzon+JX+5QNs9fnNzc0nH1SSkcz+NzPbDSO65b5BfuKkJ9I fR0jZs/8XWULaVGhJDHMQAvR82fTVK6qgdKo2YMAVdr2ZJpWOWn42W97d o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,590,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="141959984"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2015 21:28:44 +0000
Received: from clubhouse-1.cisco.com (clubhouse-1.cisco.com [64.100.21.13]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3GLQfTE016967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:28:43 GMT
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:26:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan Alcaide <jalcaide@cisco.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D14C3347.A438A%aretana@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1504161723090.17655@clubhouse-1.cisco.com>
References: <20150409140218.22830.31521.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D14BFEEA.4CC52%wesley.george@twcable.com> <02e401d072e4$4f5a1cc0$ee0e5640$@ndzh.com> <D14C3347.A438A%aretana@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (GSO 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-1382141583-1429219391=:17655"
Content-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1504161724190.17655@clubhouse-1.cisco.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YuSfD_5vLIPgeuHJF58YBjsWG0I>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, jgralak@juniper.net, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 16 Apr 2015 21:28:46 -0000

Hi,

Let me chip using a previous discussion inputs.

When using local-as, Cisco prepends AS on inbound updates from eBGP peers. 
I understand Juniper prepends AS on outbounds updates towards eBGP peers. 
In most cases, Cisco approach is better.

> > > > Consider
> > > >
> > > > R1 (AS1) ----(local-as 2) R2(AS3)--- R3(AS3) --- R4 (AS4)
> > > >          ebgp                    iBGP
> > > >
> > > > Cisco:
> > > >
> > > > R1: X
> > > > R2: 2 X
> > > > R3: 2 X
> > > > R4: 3 2 X
> > > >
> > > > Juniper
> > > >
> > > > R1: X
> > > > R2: X
> > > > R3: 2 X
> > > > R4: 3 2 X
> > > >
> > > > I think it's prefereable that R2 and R3 have the same AS-PATH. 
Otherwise
> > > > you can have inconsistent best-path decission inside AS3



-Juan

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> On 4/9/15, 12:43 PM, "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me review the document and query Alvaro to make sure it addresses his
>> concerns.
>>
>> On re-doing WG LC, we can do this in parallel with the other reviews I'll
>> need to redo (security directorate, routing directorate, ops-directorate
>> and gen-art). I'll start both sequences at the same time once I've heard
>> from Alvaro.
>
> I¹ll go read it, but my gut reaction is that we should go back through
> (WGLC, etc.).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>