Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 15 June 2016 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6002712D836; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
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=0.198, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UfcBLxaupUkQ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE92C12D807; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j7so16234912lfg.1; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=UAxs354tdXaqyzthGGN6LQTDslgdnbAq8ZUdvOCKXm8=; b=y0wpn6z+laFKAYg7gKahxrbi0m0CTC7fsJ8eqcUButdpeMiCHQ9ARAGKDV/c2aCF25 wIQY6oC1AaIF2hRFT6vEzHPCIuHGaZ3aFAXIUG8MJ+bdhuIyH43Y2Y4j1vn9ggIx6+E+ rTmdCGoaObHzU4zlKefJSFbrr21G4W4KSpbHJzNtBWUj0O5Gu8UVVr/qW8/SpQ3TM/V4 nWb1rWmZrzg6yD42V5sDEnO1QkCwo7uO4MYHld7xzNfF/QHhyJRrglnbVffThyKXYze1 m9wTF1HmLvSU6bmojRSXpr8hcl9L97N4S4M7XnPqKWjSDa8kXsPI92OcYXJtyv+C0WEQ ohlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UAxs354tdXaqyzthGGN6LQTDslgdnbAq8ZUdvOCKXm8=; b=bNGYSd/RAYTBXxNnOxKWubi3ZBS+Wj8tE1KRmL5c04ZAxhFwuAiPNbMxEHz5jxY8QL zsTWaf4oksMySvTkDx4bVueUe2/z/tz0cwwKUQlfaTQPvZd7ApI8PauEpfVbwL8Fgpn3 Le0rF7jE1o6mJ+0nXGIfgWVfwzX35+OljFQsEfvo3J6BX1AmmQhUSvmgLN8EW3BCdIB5 ipe9V9WZx11YAiYE6yeHBmHsNt9BKfD/D1tUPKMeWtQ4M5Hu8eccWJOcUkWhSRVptKjR 1v/pw/VH8izUEa04y+nyfwki+D96DOKlCH8nYBb3zaR4P8+3Gb0YNHNblH8c24Z53xe6 QY/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIVDnDsz15OR3h8JkBRRzLk94PQwRvFEWwdfmoirOo8uSXN4ieqa+Df2rwUWvLRhM8PzWl/+sqB+yXe9A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g92mr7142837lji.32.1466003040925; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:04:00 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5P-DesrFw7hQM0AaEEUl-WlEf1Q
Message-ID: <>
To: Benoit Claise <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146a90a7e7d3c0535526e52
Archived-At: <>
Cc: idr wg <>,, The IESG <>, Susan Hares <>,
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:04:09 -0000


> IXP, is this correct to say that all bilateral interconnections should be

Not really. It is quite common to see IX participants having direct
peerings as well as peerings via RS. All is driven by BGP policies both at
the peering routers directly as well as on the RS.


On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Benoit Claise <>; wrote:

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: No Objection
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >From an operational point of view, when an ISP wants to go change from
> bilateral interconnections to the multilateral interconnection within one
> IXP, is this correct to say that all bilateral interconnections should be
> removed?
> So that basically the ISP must chose between the two models, and not
> combined them? If this is the case, it should be mentioned.
> I thought it was clear to me until I saw figure 1: The dotted line is the
> IXP or the IXP Route Server?
> At first glance, I thought that it was the IXP and that AS1 was connected
> to the IXP Route Server while still having a bilateral connection with
> AS4.
> I hope now that the dotted line is the IXP Route Server, otherwise I've
> confused.