IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] IDR WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server (2/2/2015 - 2/16/2015)

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 F02C61A7007 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:10:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 T_7fXRlvgKnu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:10:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [198.180.150.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923BC1A1BF4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1YLoqw-0005qp-Fl; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:10:27 +0000
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:10:23 +0700
Message-ID: <m2a90jr1n4.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150212075505.GC53388@shrubbery.net>
References: <D101AA78.AA0D8%david.freedman@uk.clara.net> <m2a90jst34.wl%randy@psg.com> <D102047C.AA1A1%david.freedman@uk.clara.net> <20150212075505.GC53388@shrubbery.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bcBLAGq_wLLOdnWGAyTQqAg4sSY>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IDR WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server (2/2/2015 - 2/16/2015)
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, 12 Feb 2015 08:11:00 -0000

>> Is't this the point of the RS, to facilitate in the face of the
>> unknown?  with the above approach, assuming I filter against the RS,
>> if I wanted to, would I not still reach the same outcome?
> great idea, but why use a RS at all?  are folks still on AGS or just
> incapable of managing peering relationships?

think of it this way, some people use a gui to drive a large expensive
blob of code which configures their routers in a [semi-]automated way.

others do not wish to develop and/or maintain that lorge blob of code.
perhaps they don't have a large enough network to amortize the effort.
so they use a web site (ixp-manager) to configure an ixp-provided route
server.

my problem with the second case is that the control plane and data plane
are not congruent (think datakit, atm, ...).  the draft is suggesting a
hack to ameliorate my objection.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email