From nobody Fri Apr 23 21:13:18 2021 Return-Path: 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 E383A3A1FB4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:13:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, 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 GzAARiNaHoHi for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (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 E25B93A1FB0 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id y62so2696470pfg.4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:13:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+XQEnzZkZNzZjOs//LW8EFh4M68nwOb51zSdujrCMts=; b=eeQCeSz5iMhJTX15JN6IFApFIOoLHuBHtL3SR51W9pmD8QGUpMTBmGAh2UsPIe8YuT h2rRhaY3MIo3yxtbbRF4bLk1h3mTmRGDaPuqRtNoUrYps57Y8MoNO5eifj4SgU1FUItm s5zsYf5thfDyV2GKmWxPYTX/lSOLiZbYc3ejyX56vXyMELgnoeDaF3X/ZAk16sGJUqlt lRREtxcIe8M6qhjiMS9YUpG5moyl1TO93X/y/qMgN+FYp9vxlnX7L3lkLm646zJRM8rY nl6wJEsnuC0bA1X1lP6SZS1FclSfSFwgRYH+gF90Cjk35LgxLvZu3671jKajivshU1l+ SIjw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+XQEnzZkZNzZjOs//LW8EFh4M68nwOb51zSdujrCMts=; b=hf4Y+ZmeEJOmZCPMXqhu7izZIzd1JvG8Y6Og4CHDc7ckyOGoM+QX2sZ2MEVaVTI1sb c2BysIJsAsebME+wAJSTeLCaGqnJ2DrjMBgBLpGKP6WikVpjiQEWuyQdO+SfKeip/xK8 woElfF5k+Iltu7N5GljvIGJFkK0BgT1fgbe5MpAnZfCWDxxMqIHX201Or17k5TYIjl75 iN97c2+ZY8fu7aiHWCwXgne6WW8mlkxw0mo5BXISLb24mdY88gVTZpxaNu4/cMRKbSZu 6eAFhngSx4qpAQP5KteQALGBoqJR/OzE4SlTDrVIBr9WicN5iYXOLGDHb3x4+tWZpkUF qJWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531fL/Tz0jDE1rj7R1tvaoq7uw7NjVBYqAf+M0u33WEp4uR4eBdv C37YuWzJugjlsIAR9vlzDHNnSUga8CZAEh/xqyc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJylZBQhTuMh26Z4vI6RrA3Vt4SclpGu6MmImxsxAA4xRTMMRAWjf6G5na+ZCoyhdfviiiYQtpU37kP8aK+Uwc0= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8d03:0:b029:259:f2ed:1849 with SMTP id j3-20020aa78d030000b0290259f2ed1849mr7300006pfe.30.1619237590496; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:13:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <161843563034.11054.13811966622190622752@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Gyan Mishra Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:12:59 -0400 Message-ID: To: Robert Raszuk Cc: heasley , "idr@ietf. org" , maelmans@juniper.net, max@stucchi.ch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000637bee05c0b021ad" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound-02.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org 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: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 04:13:17 -0000 --000000000000637bee05c0b021ad Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 on the pre and post separate limits If you make them both the same then it does not help in troubleshooting the actual pre policy so has to be a much higher limit then post policy. Definitely separate pre and post limit. I would think the pre policy as it=E2=80=99s a copy of the rib pre policy a= nd not the ask-rib-in I would not think it would be impacted by the maximum prefix. I do agree that for memory issues use cases it=E2=80=99s a good to have a s= eparate pre policy maximum. Kind Regards Gyan. On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 6:29 PM Robert Raszuk wrote: > Ok good point. > > But while I agree it seems that this proves that we perhaps need to have > two different inbound prefix limit parameters. > > One which can protect the router from collapse - the other one which can > be custom crafted by the operator to accommodate his per peer policy. > > Former would be applied pre soft-in while the latter after it. > > Not trying to make it too complex - but just to reflect operationally > what's out in the wild already. If you have a single limit and apply it p= re > soft-in you simply break it. > > Thx, > R. > > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 12:03 AM heasley wrote: > >> Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 04:34:35PM +0200, Robert Raszuk: >> > The observation I am trying to make is that IMHO soft in is not really= a >> > Pre Policy in a sense that you must not apply Prefix Limit to it. >> Otherwise >> > the entire idea of soft-in becomes questionable. >> >> the rib that soft reconfig uses has to be subject to a limit; without >> that, >> the device is not entirely protected from memory exhaustion from a massi= ve >> leak (eg: every possible /128). >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > --=20 *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com * *M 301 502-1347* --000000000000637bee05c0b021ad Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1 on the pre and post separate limits=C2= =A0

If you make them bot= h the same then it does not help in troubleshooting the actual pre policy s= o has to be a much higher limit then post policy.=C2=A0 Definitely separate= pre and post limit.

I w= ould think the pre policy as it=E2=80=99s a copy of the rib pre policy and = not the ask-rib-in I would not think it would be impacted by the maximum pr= efix. =C2=A0

I do agree = that for memory issues use cases it=E2=80=99s a good to have a separate pre= policy maximum.

Kind Re= gards=C2=A0

Gyan.=C2=A0<= /div>

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 6:29 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
Ok good point.=C2=A0

But while I agree it seems that this proves that we perhaps need to = have two different inbound prefix limit parameters.=C2=A0

One which can protect the router from collapse - the other one whic= h can be custom crafted by the operator=C2=A0to accommodate=C2=A0his per pe= er policy.=C2=A0

Former would=C2=A0be applied pre = soft-in while the latter after it.=C2=A0

Not tryin= g to make it too complex - but just to reflect operationally what's out= in the wild already. If you have a single limit and apply it pre soft-in y= ou simply break it.=C2=A0

Thx,
R.
<= /div>


On Sat, Apr 24, 20= 21 at 12:03 AM heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:
Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 0= 4:34:35PM +0200, Robert Raszuk:
> The observation I am trying to make is that IMHO soft in is not really= a
> Pre Policy in a sense that you must not apply Prefix Limit to it. Othe= rwise
> the entire idea of soft-in becomes questionable.

the rib that soft reconfig uses has to be subject to a limit; without that,=
the device is not entirely protected from memory exhaustion from a massive<= br> leak (eg: every possible /128).

=C2=A0<= /div>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
--
--000000000000637bee05c0b021ad--