Re: [Idr] XXCs

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 08 April 2020 15:07 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 447B73A0E84 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 lfSqwZ_hNSTf for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (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 A8EB43A0E25 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id a7so214510oid.7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YYXr3+3cLeraZNykdmjHCUp3f9kk/twwXITO+5QH48A=; b=QHD/7QrsYdlbitmO/bbI1Z2+oPI+MaWpK+EqT1h4wEu8LjLRYTPRVCqliCAjZySAai Qo7Pb7h5P9XFGasuvo5U6CdMlT1gfoxhTjq5MVPSOB/B13IbNquVGT7pYGwx29KpeH1h Y63OKKxO6IthxDw8S4fzF6JZxPT06N+YCn7IQC4Otg+FTalbnVnFP26vTLGA0Zyf7OGu y4jyvnmost7ZRI5nYoLpKbzP0WUsHsd9vkzf4xmt4b4KIgxPToW76iqQ/RQMMxjFLsZ1 xjhPibMoBpg/MqsoddQ6XDwM/cqhqSRIZnLOHNb0vbF9XB1F2sW7fLtxqaW+SP6w5nGi 7RjA==
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=YYXr3+3cLeraZNykdmjHCUp3f9kk/twwXITO+5QH48A=; b=ErxOoFbDqG1O2pODnYfTx+afuTsDBnPYiZnim6KIlIgc2ZRua7PDRJ7beGfsOjBZgG Wj4eTeUgzovBCfTjZpCjHRNh1uSzJ0WEdIlCkjeCwT2mI5Ibsyno7U4XMHMj86oyZYl7 xT3LG49KsGcNf61K7ma36lY83/AcCajVsr3i/ZhmMldR62nExmTwcxwTEPgBf4u6B8G1 AplBcwY1l/jxqsouB4co0es/vnaLB2Ji8nOPHXDMVHGXVfbfGJjab5/967O8o+4ODUve vFLaRszc4eTgbYsQzzAsUerJrz+T5Peunuwg5enKb2o9gCk0tDH4x3Wxyv+F3Rknrn4J O8mw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pua/OrSdeee6zaL502PRisaoJ2sVISyZwgQgIUXb5V1PPb1bDvA7 WNE1IrUKsi99G3Sv49bWkYSHzgz3owy4Jj0NiS+3Gw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKmUnjcK6XCqMcCuJ5OpgeB4BqW/3NWA2ogG+lIn/5EIZ6PYfAiQCrq+BWkQurNIkeoacz2gB/ITNS2v9sW5lk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:4e:: with SMTP id v14mr2808870oic.70.1586358445624; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
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, 8 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
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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 15:07:51 -0000

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>