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

Andrei Robachevsky <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.com> Fri, 10 June 2016 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.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 52AF912B01E; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 NyacX9D9PakU; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 1C9C812D09B; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id m124so91042625wme.1; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=IpdLoc7ijPSWRvaaUOkPeVxqRT27N7ZFB9ud7WDZb9s=; b=04BLEQaJDhEXJj0HltGe+pFAWXSztP8Ojk7BYTIovGMMYDVDb9GeCwbXo8eZ+YCs1b 003AmIxEIxZM+HejALvaBpvE1pTw2iE3zCEdQHX1vqoVAGNsJoAi5Jktrw1ng7f0eHbQ Npwpcu2VPeg5fHic3w7Eq5LCFVTHUcpcJAvQ9667cKorr+mUFC/9r+yuUoGyOPb9L5tb jm+b6hlXEyp3TFh5bX8JKBFiqpiRz2+GU4bLRwmsL0LdvKBBcbGGNdWwe+NSYmOCVYki uHI/DxQ2o77NXMklyNfGkayr8D4DijJ4H65PvARlOlHSoVuJr0dbTelm/sD7CkNmbO1t wrLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=IpdLoc7ijPSWRvaaUOkPeVxqRT27N7ZFB9ud7WDZb9s=; b=Jl449q8DJ7ChtEuD5rZVIokQ9rUB2sz23xQcVebRU+x7et/tLpQUhQ60+uRHZ6plo9 zCzYqed5v9j7SXbOhV6GTqB4wwqG0/butFY/CjB/ib9DWx26e+HgseZh5PCmGxSlcJbZ b5Cp3E5zvH3xt0qThuln7q1/nE3Vx2pBQUBqF/d3BNP7aiEoRtv1MhjwtkBbiPyO/y7a d9wRT081vMKPKpDExg645XJ6XSb8kQEk96TccJb1q+hMAMbm+8oD5Z/v7eor8zWzr7IW R/4+PAayMsjA9DM3Vpwrathc353KnlqHG42RGBppJZeC4ef3ePlTGXChOOpqerYQJCou yCzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJBXhuyHsnM+2L1DjPn6hS8dpWHEzx+qefhEtA8d0WI/7mv+UO4boT7wwdlt6KN1A==
X-Received: by 10.194.74.104 with SMTP id s8mr894179wjv.20.1465546375618; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ISOC-A1FD58.local (j163159.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.163.159]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id wo3sm11073291wjb.12.2016.06.10.01.12.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr@ietf.org
References: <012e01d1c012$1d05f8d0$5711ea70$@ndzh.com>
From: Andrei Robachevsky <andrei.robachevsky@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a231051e-8083-5b26-a0d6-7c45aeced5ee@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:12:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <012e01d1c012$1d05f8d0$5711ea70$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HwRrlir3iUJxIMle5KQLWlBOKFnOh8NPo"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZB8mQYlF2-739LdxLDHDbeJvzSY>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation@ietf.org, "'John G. Scudder'" <jgs@bgp.nu>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy - (6/6 to 6/20/2016)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 10 Jun 2016 08:12:59 -0000

Dear WG,

Susan Hares wrote on 06/06/16 18:40:
> 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.

I think proposed enhancements to the BGP Open message in signalling the
relationship could be a useful property that should be explored further.
For instance, in cases where a single policy (e.g. peer-peer) can be
applied to the BGP session, this method can be used for automating
setting of the RLP field. I suggest that this amendment is documented in
a separate draft, which I'll support for the WG adoption.

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

In some cases.

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

Variation of routing policy on per prefix basis.

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

The proposed OTC flag is similar to the RLP field, but the semantics is
different. I suggest that the considerations for the OTC flag
(especially a single flag vs per-hop) are discussed in the framework of
the the draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation and a best way is
chosen by the WG, rather than having 2 parallel threads of incompatible
solutions.

Full disclosure - I am one of the co-authors of
draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation

Andrei

>  
> 
> Sue Hares and John Scudder
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>