Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 15 March 2017 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 448EF129C34 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 7eiiYcvu9vb6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x233.google.com (mail-qt0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]) (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 ADBB9129C2B for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x233.google.com with SMTP id i34so24771283qtc.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=GdYkXGKDaqqWj613yzyknoNzfVlEpFXaI2JfZgRNqPk=; b=mndPwrFqDL59o/gB67edwwPbvYN+kSyUjXVUoIc64iT94zOvYZROEUPi1j89idzYQy Bl4LQtbHuOro1ZSgT1iSe+N+An/VWFyv+h7s7sluaEdkCSpTnzVyv7XqcqMRQaHxmUc9 1UPJeuX/jcmjcYPSzmLjf4QFVqYOQ0Nm0N2g8a0ySHoJBFS27rxBjFbhOwr563WeKnhs 2WmqO0prQRi1nYCpkUGXYZogWViYfKBbjbqE0L5VIDLj/iE9e4jTs36atgbUOT5cp3Dr mO++euTAC/CEpXpC+kXROTCHrB+VqNxEIXMzPj/bvNF2FACCygauRwlHpKZu+3JzDxXR cmng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GdYkXGKDaqqWj613yzyknoNzfVlEpFXaI2JfZgRNqPk=; b=KqldsLSvMcXuSdl17uEiCthk10McvPAAXbPQYxqXrlbLrV1p0VPjsSU4YR3cFxS9Ol 8qjUCA8gGUiVZVjbjsiJr37kvxVE+C34p/MKDV7bII1jaSTq2ptyguPf6FADy0CMxi+8 m+91TkZErPSEIiUvgEBYJC73HbRVIc2Rma5xtYgRTjVPUYC+2jrAkeQS43VjaJZvwihV mBdJMcORBaBmnknl3u4+rQDNjrz2dBKzZPKUbEudq7yI7KTet/QqlKHgOdQldr27itlN MTEH1cUVyrEAADItmKn2lr7uNIiqbBL1YQivQXJ27zaD7smD1VH9yeuMYm5h183I1vIk 66yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H01TN3+a38WBBQpTEC6lCG9owr4iHSuJjjNRKXMLdv/hXV4jp0BzOwAOKqtzw33bfNOzcEeg7Ivyb/Y5A==
X-Received: by 10.200.0.25 with SMTP id a25mr5012048qtg.199.1489617512743; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.42.181 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACWOCC-gAPbV0fdraHkkjhSo=Tc_YUFWMTOjx311a2XDJZMDmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+b+ERmLDNzF=TofW=w1OwUzeLGUc-3muMckHTH6Rs=c8rc5bQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170314223333.bw3caxfn34y6zlb7@Vurt.local> <CA+b+ERmMOyqb8HFtNXyDr8e+MNxA7EWmJFukUNgSjAU+69f5CA@mail.gmail.com> <20170314225855.GN12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERkt6MJUPR-4WX0LYZ9CG1FoNX-g4=hnqFB9iQy8WfKOww@mail.gmail.com> <20170315000326.GO12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERmWUL-pVwjW8Vq+Vz8UzYDpcVBZxxhtM6WFqhmG+r35WA@mail.gmail.com> <58C95A05.3030107@foobar.org> <20170315195050.GT12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERn-uya3kB-FgXvfFjdK-hPmj-W-mv_T+TnbEAfkzR8Hfg@mail.gmail.com> <20170315212656.GD2367@Space.Net> <CA+b+ER=MnejDq5JNyNUHvf7mV7vkFehbeE65a_5cqFUsTEAzZA@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC-gAPbV0fdraHkkjhSo=Tc_YUFWMTOjx311a2XDJZMDmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 23:38:31 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uXg85LyOYYPDwdEQXrjNj-b-jBA
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmxQkH75tbotT16hsZvqrvMVsX0G_zyY1ofA=kTZZzZ0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045e7362b2d9a1054acc9a65
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ca58iY69UyOIoNK5EiIX-waQiVo>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.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: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:38:35 -0000

Thank you Job !

So this means that every third or second customer in first two IXes
respectively connect to exchange with at least two edge routers or it could
be the same CE router with two interfaces :).

Now this also means that each such edge router is connecting to both
independent route servers.

Based on the above just making sure that those two route servers pick paths
with different next hop as best may already address the problem to improve
robustness with just putting only a negligible additional load on the
customer edge keeping current hardware and software as is.

Kind regards,
Robert.


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>; wrote:

>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 22:58, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:
>
>> Like Job observed for some customers peering to/via IX is just an
>> additional optimization hence indeed some may not always put most expensive
>> and latest gear there.
>>
>> Actually after this discussion I am quite curious how many nets on the
>> routes servers really have more then one bgp path. If not much then this
>> entire effort here may not be practically useful.
>>
>
> Did some small crude sampling by asking around:
>
> AMS-IX RS indicated that one out of three routes have an alternative path
> DE-CIX RS 1 out of 2 routes have an alternative path
> INEX RS seemed to have virtually no alternative paths for the routes
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>