Re: [Idr] IDR Charter discussion

"Susan Hares" <> Tue, 23 July 2019 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1631202A5 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uqy3oevF6tm3 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FDCC120319 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: "'Neil J. McRae'" <>, 'Job Snijders' <>,
References: <022b01d51fc5$d6576dd0$83064970$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:33:05 -0400
Message-ID: <007201d54163$8b404370$a1c0ca50$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIdg7HoWEJ9E9Q2QbmV0ImeCpD95AGXQrsVAVHrUzGmMHLnsA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190723-0, 07/23/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IDR Charter discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:33:32 -0000


On 1 + 2:  NM/OPS groups such as GROW have more expertise to decide requirements regarding E-BGP maximum prefixes and appropriate actions. IDR will be glad to review proposed requirements, appropriate action and any proposals on BGP changes.   

On 3, proposals on sending key contact info over BGP have been proposed for 15 years.   People in operations have stated: "Please do not put this information in".  Other operations have stated - "Please put contact info" so I can survive outages without looking up phone numbers. Unless there are clear operational requirements,  IDR working on protocol changes will end up in the same debates.   So we will look to NM/OPS WGs to provide better requirements. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Neil J. McRae [] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 8:37 AM
To: Job Snijders; Susan Hares;
Subject: Re: [Idr] IDR Charter discussion

I think 1+2 have some merit but 3 is not managing routing at a human level and shouldn't be here. IMO

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:51:03PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> The IDR Charter was last revised in March, 2010. 
> It's time to reconsider what needs to go in the charter: 
> Somethings we might include are:

It may be good to consider some operations and management functions to be specced out in IDR.

>From the operational side of the house I recall a few long-standing

    - ability to see which prefixes are accepted/rejected by the
      EBGP neighbor
    - ability to see the maximum prefix limits configured by the
      EBGP neighbor
    - ability to relay some contact / circuit details over an EBGP
      session to facilitate inter-organization coordination

All of the above can be accomplished in non-realtime through out-of-band mechanisms like e-mail and phone; but this type of out-of-band channels often are error-prone.

I think we would benefit from actively shifting some of this OAM from out-of-band into the BGP protocol itself so less coordination is needed between autonomous system operators.

I am not sure how to exactly word a high level milestone suitable for the charter. "Add more OAM"? "Add more operational debugging capabilities"? 

Kind regards,


Idr mailing list