Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy

Dear Job,

Thank you for joining discussion!

I can't imagine situation when there would be changes in roles between two
neighbors on regular basis. So, we should not suffer from lots of BGP flaps
caused by roles.

In second point you've highlighted most common concern about different
prefix-based route policies in same BGP session. There are at least two
workarounds:

   1. Add 'custom' role and give in such sessions access to manual OTC
   configuration (there would be new appropriate pair of roles custom-custom)
   2. Split such BGP sessions into two with different roles

For myself I do prefer second option - I would like to see route leak
mitigation as built in and fully automated mechanism, with no opportunity
for 'fat fingers' get inside. This could bring additional work for NOC
teams in short term, but in long term benefit from controlling neighbor
configuration (especially in case of new ISPs) will fully cover the spent
time. But what do you think according to your operational experience?

2016-06-09 19:32 GMT+03:00 Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

-- 
| Alexander Azimov  | HLL l QRATOR
| tel.: +7 499 241 81 92
| mob.: +7 915 360 08 86
| skype: mitradir
| mailto: aa@qrator.net
| visit: www.qrator.net

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