Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Fri, 17 November 2017 18:22 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 73A411293E0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:22:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 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_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Nv87XSJW7R4i for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:22:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 984E61200FC for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:22:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14996; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510942949; x=1512152549; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=WQOYngzhbnl13SdA+WPVdnNhOVF47eAgY8DPrrCkUn8=; b=VWruv0OuDixyOZv7anykckulSV8+jzY01ChunQbRvA0iCDZ5nllLzkcR Y6gT3wKKwkgiyGjYkM5eEOcNTG9T+hhNT+W2IFSe6HKIzZxK4IAwE7qdb 4GBsiPCaPWodqGymPVypdXOOtj58iltf3NFIRBOm8bwEraZT0fT3c+D4k U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DSAgBPKA9a/49dJa1bGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJKcmRuJweDeJlFgX1+h16IPYVJghEKGAEMhRYCGoRNQBcBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIUeAQEBAQIBAQEhCjoHCwUHBAIBCBEEAQEoAwICAh8GCxQJCAIEDgUIiTlMAw0IEKosgieHOA2DNQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgzSBDnmBVYFpgnU2gmtagW0fgl+CYwWZIohfPQKHcIghhHCCH5E2ijWCPTqIWQIRGQGBOQEgATdDgTF6FUmCZIJcHBmBTncBiUSBEQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.44,410,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="32928834"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Nov 2017 18:22:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (xch-rcd-014.cisco.com [173.37.102.24]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAHIMSg7008890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Nov 2017 18:22:28 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (173.37.102.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:22:28 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:22:28 -0600
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: Interminable Discussion Room <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)
Thread-Index: AdNcB5lUqir6ZylBRUe7xuFnWiyeYQCRCmeAAAKXf6AADgWzoAAEnWDQAA2aSYAAD2nugAA21pSAAAflG9A=
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 18:22:28 +0000
Message-ID: <e0d75bb572454c15b50279cdf676c359@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <000901d35c08$3f12d950$bd388bf0$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ER=PnW0-Qr9K4KTY4OAQC6-PQqRcbtc4yABXeRoz0xhw5A@mail.gmail.com> <43b50b8982fe411fa275b294c210edfa@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <13899_1510805003_5A0D0E0B_13899_270_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A478F0F5B@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5de035082ecf4b458c53dd543ace3835@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <m2d14i68cu.wl-randy@psg.com> <da756a96bc8442e9bbf83cdad22a57a3@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnERcEUnB48R9ApspiKvhWegAcyWyTF-gTH2-+Jknb5vQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnERcEUnB48R9ApspiKvhWegAcyWyTF-gTH2-+Jknb5vQ@mail.gmail.com>
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: [10.154.131.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e0d75bb572454c15b50279cdf676c359XCHALN014ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cJxUcEEYq3eiCnh-SGcUGp8t8wE>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 18:22:31 -0000

The ethernet auto-discovery route carries a route target for every EVI on the ethernet segment.
There can be a lot of EVIs sharing an ethernet segment. You can get over 4000 vlans on an ethernet.
This was a few years ago. Not sure if it's been fixed.

Thanks,
Jakob

From: rraszuk@gmail.com [mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 8:05 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: Interminable Discussion Room <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)

Hi Jakob,

So if this is no longer needed for bgpsec perhaps you can share with IDR what type of cargo BESS cooked for BGP transport jets to now carry ?

Millions of MAC addresses packed into extended communities ? Something worse ?

Thanks a lot,
Robert.


On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com<mailto:jheitz@cisco.com>> wrote:
Yes, extended-messages was originally proposed, because bgpsec required it.
However, it doesn't anymore, because it is now using a shorter signature than before.
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-23.txt

There are some cases in EVPN that require lots of extended communities to be sent.
This is why in my proposed text, I said "feature" not "capability".

Thanks,
Jakob


-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:33 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com<mailto:jheitz@cisco.com>>
Cc: Interminable Discussion Room <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)
> The reason I went further than that is that with extended messages,
> it's not just about a speaker and its neighbor anymore, it's about a
> whole BGP space.

< bitchiness, it's been two weeks in s'pore >

the original extended messages draft was restricted to update messages
for the purpose of bgpsec.  and bgpsec required it.  and when bgpsec
hits a neighbor which does not speak bgpsec, it strips all the crypto
bloat and then the update fits in 4095 as it is the same as today.  this
was not an accident.

but the idr wg, it its tradition of embellishment, asked for other
messages to be extended (some suggested open be extended too, a real
rat-hole).  well, bright folk, you want it, you figure it out.  send
text.  and small simple text, < 500 words.  if you can not keep it
simple, that should tell you something.

rndy

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