Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as0-01.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 05 January 2012 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 9F4B411E808D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:45:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.627, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id foh-bd2ewqeM for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BF211E8080 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CA2182240DB; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 01:45:32 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:45:32 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <20120105014532.GC7464@slice>
References: <20111216182324.17528.28150.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9CD76392-6F52-441C-BCF5-2335D7F49B8F@kumari.net> <4EEBEAEB.8070304@cisco.com> <0156DFD0-B706-42B0-93AB-89C9E6E252FD@kumari.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0156DFD0-B706-42B0-93AB-89C9E6E252FD@kumari.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: keyupate@cisco.com, idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as0-01.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 01:45:33 -0000

[Explicit cc on the draft-ietf-idr-error-handling authors for the comments below.]

Warren,

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:26:10PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Enke Chen wrote:
> >  1) Is it really necessary to make AS 0 an error in the AGGREGATOR and AS4_AGGREGATOR attributes?  What is the gain?
> 
> I'll double check with co-authors on Monday -- I don't think it is strictly necessary to prevent attack, rather it seemed more elegant to check AS 0 where ever it occurs.

While I generally agree with Enke that treating as a malformed route is
probably excessive, I think the recommended behavior is desirable.  The
mandate that the error-handling draft procedures must be used makes it
acceptable.  Without those procedures, bouncing the session is almost
certainly the wrong thing to do.

> It was brought up on the NANOG list that some vendors support zero'ing out the AGGREGATOR (see Junipers "no-aggregator-id" as an example -- this appears to only zero out the router ID, but I haven't checked all implementations), so checking for AS 0 in the .*AGGREGATOR may be a bad idea, so at the moment I'm leaning towards removing it (obviously, this being a WG doc, with the WG's approval)

Older varieties of gated had bugs with respect to the AS number that was
selected to be placed in the aggregator AS field.  JunOS may have had
similar bugs at one point but the behavior that I can see in a cursory check
of the code should result in a system AS number being placed there.

My recommendation for the as0 draft is that we leave in the current text and
let the attribute be treated as "malformed" by the error-handling draft.
The behavior in that draft of attribute-discard is reasonable.

> >  2) The error handling for AS4_PATH / AS4_AGGREGATOR is specified in rfc4893bis (draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis-04.txt). Thus it should be referenced if you specify AS 0 as an error for the AS4_PATH / AS4_AGGREGATOR.
> > 
> 
> Doh! This was mentioned a few times and I intended to do so, but it completely slipped my mind when typing... Thanks for reminding me....

Similarly, there should be references for these attributes added to the
error-handling draft.

-- Jeff