IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Thu, 06 July 2017 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@cisco.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 874FA131563 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 ba_UyeYjtZDY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD7D2129A96 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13176; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1499374297; x=1500583897; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=n1iczsU8AX2GA/RYFzHPgO8O80sRWjFerv+sbm6BvoQ=; b=Ntlu3c9QDTy5siKWVuqRJY+ve0xH+/BDOj4wL3j4aH6QCk6e/NeDgh+i 3gnOJSHbQ36wSZW3si4tTd95nynKCUMHAupNtTQZYjoRls2CX1sDov7u1 mhRhFpiamrRmqdlpLjHHbOe2+T70XP0fxcLGrpGJYXP4SPoaI25WzPGNm k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CoAACTol5Z/4sNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm9qY4ERB44CkWeQV4UsghEhAQqFcAKDMz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEDAQElBkELEAIBCA4DBAEBKAcnCxQJCAIEDgUIE4kwZBCyTzqLMwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgyeDTIUFhSCFPgWXLodhAodFjDaSJ5U3AR84gQp1FUmHFnaHZYENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,319,1496102400"; d="scan'208,217";a="256352293"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Jul 2017 20:51:36 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v66KpaN6028058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:51:36 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:51:36 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:51:36 -0500
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS9BUunfHRezzCokubhqS6qWLW+qJCmLwAgAADHACAAAV9AIAAEJgAgAAELwCAACXgAIAABdiAgAAGlwCAAAS/gIAAAluAgAADsICAAAI9gIAABIMAgAAG2ACAANELAIAAVbOAgAGER4CAABuWgIAACY6A///raUCAAL0bAP//txnAgAEO71CAAAQWUIAAWEeA//+trYA=
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:51:36 +0000
Message-ID: <131fa1bb3bff424e8ff5207b368a0734@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <20170703175308.hembxkplaniz66wb@Vurt.local> <m2van9z3jp.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC8tPVD20SJ60h-=NGbPMG3Fae2a0TY5rMFb=EnN7H-C6Q@mail.gmail.com> <m2o9t1z1hj.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC_bQitHeR9tHc5tPsXmoSDDLQH764equTAHrP854fYh-A@mail.gmail.com> <BF65C4DC-D2F5-41AF-8454-D43B403E328B@juniper.net> <CACWOCC9cmz7ARnWNowCCEu3Rt_NiyuWgJMZ3pWfmxZ_BO8Ovjw@mail.gmail.com> <292534ED-98BC-49A0-82A2-45B6688F851D@juniper.net> <CACWOCC_KTzJLQAJf_j4ZqM1oJSFq9JcyT7aAPLGf3+2Ess7BBA@mail.gmail.com> <09BFF794-6899-4DA5-8EF5-DDF86513BFBA@pfrc.org> <20170704104840.mg5bflnmmjlv4jbi@Vurt.local> <20C02BA3-5C13-46FB-AFE8-85D61E469EA1@juniper.net> <CA+b+ERmJRbhwa5Eut4+KwxqmAcaBM3fSvL1-zjrxBfZur6QxjA@mail.gmail.com> <1FD8FAE9-E6BF-4C48-BCD6-12C1012827E2@juniper.net> <CA+b+ER=eYJN1HXa+buCB7kR+Byt0iWH6-a20VJ5DjzbQEJrhKQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9d07382674b4ea5b513a3608b6bd85a@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <F55CBE76-FD1D-462D-993A-F2E88E9F3184@juniper.net> <696fbda3aa2b4af9b0fc8f4757e7b541@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <4d8bd5d458db4427a72c15a5ae94cda7@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <8620abbfc6444433b950c4a748fa2fed@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <B5D31169-C18D-4A47-BB82-1A196731F10E@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <B5D31169-C18D-4A47-BB82-1A196731F10E@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.43.213]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_131fa1bb3bff424e8ff5207b368a0734XCHALN014ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c8_VKAnSkefwJnRVX-uq2IhT9JY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:51:39 -0000

The game is about the RS hiding paths that the client wants.
Nexthop reachability is but one of many criteria to determine
the path that a client wants.
Focusing on nexthop rechability will result in an incomplete solution.
I don't need a draft. A complete solution to the problem already exists:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7911


Thanks,
Jakob.

From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 1:41 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

These are not our use cases.  If you'd like one, feel free to write a draft covering those.

The draft simply proxies information related to BGP's reachability condition for a nexthop.  If this was full-mesh, the game would be different.  If this was a RR, this would be different.  The RS is (mostly) exceptional in this case.


-- Jeff

On Jul 6, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com<mailto:jheitz@cisco.com>> wrote:

The draft proposes to filter paths from best-path selection
based upon nexthop reachability.

Why stop at reachability?

A client may not wish to accept routes from another client, because
they don't have a contract or whatever reason.
Can we include the ASN of the nexthop with each nexthop?

Other possible reasons for not wanting a route:
. The AS-path contains an undesirable ASN.
. The origin AS does not have the right to advertise the prefix.
. I prefer a customer route over a peer route.
. The route is a leak.
. Etc, Etc.

Can you put the whole attribute set into the ReachAsk/ReachTell
rather than just the nexthop?

Heck, why don't you just send the complete route --> Add-path.

Thanks,
Jakob.
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email