[Idr] BGP flooding and AS-PATH
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 11 March 2019 09:34 UTC
Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 1DFBE130F34 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 0xtEvRUilTKt for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (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 45A5612E036 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id u7so4222000qtg.9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gpRIvMRFo25e2b75JJtii5I/qwNlQ54Dl+S+fvpz2es=; b=UdUuY40I7bW1GMnUi+D9QTty9nbbx1dhS0uKNtlzA/ZM1cnAUNpL3I7BfDxVCgiSfh bP/qJLSnqDcaSdSUzZ5J+f+GEQeAFlrqEFvAZkU+Ui4AWYfjB9gQ3SXACvayOXMCzUtG PDPf2ny9YhkgTh+NWu2m599qG4ujgb/EEOrQL2OGZqDLK7qbnYwu3dMUkMn59rFBTfjn OpPEokUF8gxicnTlDFv/OcseVdybMHe8szV05Tymw6MxG5lNjFhOGlqvASZFeZmrH71P iOjADn3QMYUISo5vcQ9aiSwypSSOkhzUjn5AT/zGxengKPT2fRiCeftoVTgyOuGoJF3G BqSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gpRIvMRFo25e2b75JJtii5I/qwNlQ54Dl+S+fvpz2es=; b=n1R3KIoaKkPDyX8sWWvb8r9agzrP05+/C5RGhFMiYdUSm6kEn3rg6zvlUkD4xh5Vpi 3Lu7vWxLqMWQSv4EdeQV3xsBmytJsDGZM7c58bVge9wzXcx39kIIEDkiowAPQ0MDB49P ZbyeAja+oHlEbpz2C+CDNvjuoJiOcNnclNWhpsDl5RjI+m59TwBvdfSDFCE0Mtx/mJcp wuUtqMVL68+z1BiyGcCYGKnraetEzA2INPGBKdpkApglHSpZmrsa9kw9QPgUgnXvVck1 kaX0/gZ1ECaJbWbj707EKQytXBhhP/lmbnvnjOfkL10PZpsMpmA6PXKzP7krddzI83dI hH4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVi7GykLkjD9OGoXf/8oI52E77Tqonh2yAgD1R8EQ3CujhZsDPQ ZuQ2iukCsyfe0DXfzqGU5JyT8qQHskAylCcYTkbzng==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqws3HXhT5ASNWKAKmrHs+4kWR2JaWlynJ0sWQAtCmzSruMm5nxs1mW672LNWw/usDf710BXzS+1TPa0gaIV688=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6bc8:: with SMTP id b8mr5910235qtt.219.1552296893367; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:34:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEH276xQscJDXaGCH3wmZZynkfP+TJD-Zxd06ZyfxU1YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea5e250583ce48ec"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/v008XDluzixy9K3kZEFxoH6N3cQ>
Subject: [Idr] BGP flooding and AS-PATH
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:34:56 -0000
Dear authors of draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric, I would like to ask for a small clarification on how in the quoted RFC7938 design are you going to propagate topology information between peers configured with the same AS number ? Say between devices belonging to tier 1 stage or to a sets in tier 2 stages ? Do you assume that those switches just do not need to be aware of each other's presence say for TE purposes ? Specifically I am curious how are you going to accomplish it in the cases where no AS-PATH removing controller is involved as described here: "An internal software component on any of the BGP routers (e.g. TE module) can also receive the entire BGP network topology information from its local BGP process." Thx a lot, R.
- [Idr] BGP flooding and AS-PATH Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] BGP flooding and AS-PATH Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] BGP flooding and AS-PATH Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] BGP flooding and AS-PATH Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)