Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18)(.

Alexander Azimov <a.e.azimov@gmail.com> Tue, 16 June 2020 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <a.e.azimov@gmail.com>
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 0F9B63A040F; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:48:13 -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, 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 nstua_WyX2Uk; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (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 9A5FA3A0783; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j189so20486532oih.10; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:48:10 -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=M3j3kPS4r1eH3k1uhuVZDNybPVAzNixmjzw/vajugTc=; b=J1yqsZEiy70Yu3oBy0ENWo61xH3GIc+CZ4gCGh6aNZG4hKHWgWlbrGtx7aw6atoI0n pyCZdEfp3+y39ZF2xYwo6qthXjnvWVPxNDPfemGfp1agXmwAtipKSzLxeHBjWCNrHQMC iAwrjzA907x5dqSbmcy4T38q/aRHs6yNg4LBtSHIol8JGtfrEvD1zK4hXAfWxNWVFO7g aOmu1/vIMZeqWH/CuegvesX0AKeCAdHOFrJC1zDJOIpX69mFEtz2h/k9b73r1EZb2/j9 xlETsSmqfXDE0rH9V+w34xZRQmyKLBW7NgCHPRMO50GEszZJaEtKHWCbKMAv/FmpZYf9 Y5FA==
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=M3j3kPS4r1eH3k1uhuVZDNybPVAzNixmjzw/vajugTc=; b=lhyu2GARbGZws8zCHuBef7Q/YyWlCFVGyJTZwzh0LE5yoGD1mKQsy/ZEeHG3v8/P6W Np0FfHQthVCuLo1/MpQIxO35JOm68kk//75mUM4RDtoXTKs48h6DZRtLlXNVHzMN+vbP Lq/7Z68eIdFndHB7aVNKPrLJ69vhssT8d93DtY0BIsWagCBELNg8/JaNBENjDVKmxo/g BiDllZ73fO2BNdfmkfNiIpBWrCeiPhkZgxgePMSXoB6GetyGMUR5CS9fzEaRr72vXXY/ WJggBKOWz6vYOWo1aVC4UVhP25y8YbvafjToz6dntVeJbgmx4rlo1Fs7uuGOLiDpuMeL 1mFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531dnzwSUKT4Qx/2zPH68aXnJOmL1bqSR1eDQrx7ri65rLc/B23m U52PevxdA1kXNUFeynjvIbLOrQ5IfivuXA/vA9Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZnBtOkWxTeMQ8iTqmUqyN+vcjzNQERGziXZ8fyDdfNJ132CQYSsLYLkjl+5yfS/G+IjubKcuadWCwahe/QsM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d884:: with SMTP id p126mr5124770oig.4.1592340489737; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BL0PR0901MB3682A78982CD60BF5D8039A084800@BL0PR0901MB3682.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV1e9nu336Y-WRB=d=8zo3Gyc4FB_-SeDf50NSRQCHOirQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1e9nu336Y-WRB=d=8zo3Gyc4FB_-SeDf50NSRQCHOirQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexander Azimov <a.e.azimov@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 23:47:58 +0300
Message-ID: <CAEGSd=DfKmpEqZuTHy=FuuWHiCViHC5Wm0HcyqSx4c72R9QNbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000409bf705a839a9fb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wgkTYtnA0YESZLb8S0DxvWhY0PA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18)(.
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:48:13 -0000

Hi Gyan,

As it was discussed in the mailing list the two of three current
implementations are based on open source software: BIRD and FRR, they are
compatible. We haven't yet tested intercompatibility with Microtik. There
were also plans at the openbgpd community, but as far as I know, now
results yet.

>From Yandex, we are planning to add Open Policy as a feature request for
Juniper. I know that DTAG has already made these requests for its vendors.
If Verizon will also ask for this feature it may get more momentum.

пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 20:28, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:14 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <
> kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>> >I support this draft and believe the specification is ready for
>> publication.
>>
>> >I think the role capability for auto route leaking mitigation is very
>> >valuable for both service providers as well as very large enterprises.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> >This WGLC draft along with below route leak detection of well known large
>> >BGP communities can help tremendously in automating route leak
>> mitigation.
>>
>> >
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation-02
>>
>> Appreciate the comment. We plan to request a WGLC in GROW for the above
>> draft soon.
>>
>> >BGP Large Community
>> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8092
>>
>> >Speaking from the looking glass  of a tier 1 provider Verizon we could
>> >definitely benefit from the role priority feature from the leak types
>> >described in RFC 7908.
>>
>> I think you meant '...definitely benefit from the role priority
>> feature [to protect] from the leak types described in RFC 7908'.
>
>
>   Gyan> Yes that is what I meant
>
>  So the two implementations that were done and interoperability which were
> the vendors?
>
> Also if the beta code feature is available do you have any operators
> testing the code?
>
>>
>>
>> Great to hear that.
>>
>> Sriram
>>
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7908
>>
>> >Kind regards
>>
>> >Gyan
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
>

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Azimov