Re: [Idr] [GROW] BGP Looking Glass Capability

["Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <[e-mail]>]

If we do that, we should secure it with the router certificate
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8209
Then the URL should be secured with DNSSec, or why don't we just put the
IP address in place of the hostname portion of the URL?

Regards,
Jakob.

From: GROW <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 6:37 PM
To: Rayhaan Jaufeerally (IETF) <[e-mail]>
Cc: idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [GROW] BGP Looking Glass Capability


+1 on the new AFI idea.  I would support developing the new draft.

Out of al the ideas proposed I think the new AFI seems to be the best method of achieving the BGP looking glass capability and propagation of routes.

Thanks

Gyan

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 7:25 PM Rayhaan Jaufeerally (IETF) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Thanks for the history Robert, I should have read the authors list more closely on that draft :)

From that description it seems that it was more circumstances at the time rather than push back on the implementation itself which is good news for trying to revive it,

I'll try and rework the draft to use the operational message and see which common parts are useful here, then reply to the list / IDR with the updated draft,

Cheers,
Rayhaan

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:48 AM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Rayhaan,

I guess a good starting point would be to reach out to IDR folks / authors of the operational message draft and get their input as to why it didn't progress further since that would be useful to guide any revival attempts.

Good idea. As I am co-author of this draft taking the liberty to do it right here :)

A bit of history  - in min 2010 I wrote https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-bgp-diagnostic-message-00.

Then we spoke about it, trimmed a bit and formed what we considered most important operationally into https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00

The draft was having good support during the IDR WG adoption and hence it became WG doc.

Since then most of the authors left the vendor world and our influence to implement it in significant commercial BGP code bases was no longer sufficient. Yet vendors told we will implement it if customers ask for it. So we are 9+ years and still I am not sure if anyone cares much about switching phone and email channels between NOCs into more programmatic way.

Yet we do see from time to time a pop request to some form to tell peer ascii strings like sms by BGP, pass some well known address, etc ...

I think this is the fundamental challenge in how we operate peering relations. I have seen a lot of good automation happening in the IX world, but when trying to establish BGP sessions today it seems still emails, xls, word documents style ...

While it does not need to be all TLVs as listed in the https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00 draft but I think operational message is indeed needed.

Cheers,
R.

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

Email [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

M 301 502-1347