Re: [Idr] XXCs

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 08 April 2020 15:07 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOj+MMEhJtfa+CjVgMT-eV=LbwTPxcmkT2zstFQB-GygHDWpug@mail.gmail.com> <1ab5b013e630448583d2e55179fa5c8c@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <1ab5b013e630448583d2e55179fa5c8c@att.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:07:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMG4MseSoVs5KDetzkiKoFx1FZCS5pW15gf-Hagq-GGFjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
Cc: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a3634905a2c8db14"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y0fDRvTYMsO6RodVjwI5jsZGqHA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] XXCs
Precedence: list

Hi Jim,

Yes the topic is related to how multiple ASes under one administrative
umbrella can operate BGP.

But I must say that there are two fundamental approaches:

a) the one as you described in the OAD draft defining the ATTR_SET_STACK
attribute - sort of being an Eiffle Tower of what needs to be carried
across.

b) the other option is to decouple the problem into two sub functions:
     b.1 - make those ASNs operating under same administration aware of
each other by cfg
     b.2 - make new transitive rule to allow passing under same
administration.

I just proposed b.

Jakob proposed c) which is yet one more option to define set of reserved
values (could be ASN or a prefix for easy ACL) to indicate within given
attribute the scope of propagation when ingress policy allows. I find it
much more complex and error prone as compared with (b)

Thx,
R.







On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:53 PM UTTARO, JAMES <ju1738@att.com> wrote:

> *Not sure if the intention here intersects with what I had in mind in
> 2012.. Pradosh, Saikat and I created a draft that introduced the notion of
> OAD ( One Administrative Domain ). The challenge from my point of view was
> and still is how to treat non-transitive attributes as transitive across
> the set of AS domains that “belong” to the same administrative domain. An
> example of this is the application of Local-Pref across a set of disparate
> As domains that a customers VPN spans.*
>
>
>
> *We are tackling a similar problem when spanning AS domains that are
> reflective of differing services.. i.e  a customer VPN spans EVPN and 2547
> signaling domains.*
>
>
>
> *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-uttaro-idr-oad-01
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-uttaro-idr-oad-01> *
>
>
>
> *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-02
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-02> *
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *              Jim Uttaro*
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Robert Raszuk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 08, 2020 10:41 AM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [Idr] XXCs
>
>
>
> Hey Jakob,
>
>
>
> So just an idea - if we are to redefine transitivity for XXC why don't we
> forget about all of this ASN reservations and simply instead of two
> transitive bits define three.
>
>
>
> Make 3rd bit to mean transitive only under set of ASes under same
> administrative control ?
>
>
>
> You still need a knob to know which ASNs are to be treated as same
> administration. And with that no change to community syntax  is needed at
> all - LOCAL_ASN:NUMBER
>
>
>
> Done !
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Idr] XXCs Robert Raszuk
Re: [Idr] XXCs UTTARO, JAMES
Re: [Idr] XXCs Robert Raszuk