Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt

Robert Raszuk <> Tue, 14 March 2017 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987E7129BA1 for <>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, 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 esCmhXOJIGxZ for <>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9A22129B9B for <>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p64so259597112qke.1 for <>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=QeSU+PKZikk691j5dK11DgIUPozlaT8DutLKxzpFihA=; b=qElac5bBxG+6nX9vVYdZgyo51M7rhINr3RjRfdrVcRrBJrP6o9VmoOv6tZyRTQV7MU RXy3MNF4zs1EanCWJVUAhKgIGWW77489r0FiVSlkc7bQTcYYEB4hE4HqPAiszDhnd5Hb awwEWn37sD4AbZkapTAYBgJWxzMvGJki1JrkszqvMRXTvnwXt0OM/afjoHLnTaXzqPlG iJlBLNRD2/kl+wn/7EX8oR9BkSF9s4zzC6lV429ZogJAEACilU5ugSrzYX9m9AaYm8Gj M4oXoLNNkGZ01tg4yUmeM9VUMVnL/Lx+oXezxB6pkzed1nYob8lyYQOHB9bMvbIdmwM+ qKcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QeSU+PKZikk691j5dK11DgIUPozlaT8DutLKxzpFihA=; b=PCIhpMguJBc9r+qdJOIQsZOCAKdnOvkqv/qRmxwckFtLWUPkG6uTbOZbBaaftB6Oe8 uWo3L/Aki02mCoN75oDkWd+JZmx6E1Sqnyhl/MB4UIiNOnF5WQS1baTG6YKOMojCOYFr GZ5wypVAOtCi4FB9HteJz6kZWkMcixga/C9H7DnsAadKKVxf3s03yr4cjpGF9++ORTHp Wkv8SqG5h33N9DNg2dnbqXr64jZf6MqArz7Ge0e/EnvjiQx4OGY23TFyX20oJn4qweoT gykcDNNYf19Cav86kL4RCTpB65bIY0GxGH0VB7RVCW8HCMl/15qE+OAYTVRjGcGXYB68 6QTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l31/Dhj+8THmovkNVWdB7srSXv/z9EApRyfyjhidyroCW+CZ/R9sEjL2ut8sIVx1tVUD2f4aILsGEIzg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s4mr37909631qkd.101.1489528922814; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170314214832.s3k37p27y7xfpfsv@Vurt.local>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20170314214832.s3k37p27y7xfpfsv@Vurt.local>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:02:02 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: c7Um8-3diq9s1epeil-9Pj1LMvs
Message-ID: <>
To: Job Snijders <>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <>, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <>, idr wg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c057a7053bfa9054ab7fa68"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:02:09 -0000

​Hi Job,​

> ​
> Any path that does not exist in the 'DFZ', but
_does_ exist on the route server, is either an artifact of hyper local
> traffic engineering through deaggregation, or is a bgp hijack for the
> purpose of spamming a specific subset of route server participants.

​Interesting ... why would you think so ?

Imagine I connect to an IX and also have direct Transit ​with NTT. To the
same IX also customers of NTT connect such that I can use IX switch to get
to them without going via longer path of transit provider.

To me their direct routes are better (BGP path selection wise) and I go via
IX to reach them (or they go via IX to reach my content).

> I'm somewhat inclined to accept that the route server itself may not
> have alternative paths for anything it received from one of its
> participants.

​Well that is indeed very important to verify. I am also inclined to the
same. But have no data to validate how many paths for all nets RSes carry
in major IXes.

Moreover IXes normally use two RS today so it is trivial to make sure one
RS sends ​first best the other second best to the clients (if they have
more then one). Signalling client to RS that NH is down seems at best