Re: [Idr] IDR Charter discussion

"Susan Hares" <> Mon, 22 July 2019 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A061201D3 for <>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:24:22 -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 Gxsrii8K6X_a for <>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:24:21 -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 8215612012B for <>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Job Snijders' <>,
References: <022b01d51fc5$d6576dd0$83064970$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:24:12 -0400
Message-ID: <006b01d540a1$8433fe90$8c9bfbb0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIdg7HoWEJ9E9Q2QbmV0ImeCpD95AGXQrsVpjmBa8A=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190722-4, 07/22/2019), 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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:24:23 -0000


Thanks for the feedback.   Let me think on the wordsmithing of the charter. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Job Snijders [] 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 11:12 AM
To: Susan Hares;
Subject: Re: [Idr] IDR Charter discussion

Dear Susan, group,

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,