IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Thu, 06 December 2012 06:24 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@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 E78D221F8D48 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:24:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zHxt9UWhDtQw for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-f172.google.com (mail-ea0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E39021F868E for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id a1so2591064eaa.31 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:24:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=c4/qV1t1Md/BXpHQ7RqOCXcpW4CJ89V0Nxx/zdZOvMI=; b=ik6DrGILKZ5VnqVlSzzBWfOml0DeFWjUBIcDrGH27IFRBwQ4wZQhxOnUfznPsiPaYL AdXlvhHxn17SeZ/aywAIqrs4rjyMwbS3d/+BCRc2k+sbC/LRmFx8ffzkqLqnJLbO3c88 WEMNzYstcoo0wPTSwVbOOXJkuokrChYOOtgEYRhARv+h0ZCkZlHCd+9JpVCOQwjDKD5G 8HuLA7lmBHIXjmW8Zqn7Q8Os4D9uiBpmMbKlsF+9g0onw0zSyu8LVSGjsQ/pNK7I3fyX rFowrusXcZDyAE9Bxbcpd4Q/1bylEoMjgPn8NMz+Hs7hViX5ykEd9tSoOkvPWCe+kN8q /1sA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.208.137 with SMTP id q9mr2088351eeo.28.1354775068209; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.177.5 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:24:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnYnYJtDw_BEKwrb-Q_dFzv8XUrN4wC0Bjk+CQJ9PQcNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+b+ERnuWZ+r2O-eFhe3hU00uoU4UKnRcbhLNVXU7p5+DjoWbQ@mail.gmail.com> <C6C16AE3B7961044B04A1BCEC6E2F93603D12A0C@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnYnYJtDw_BEKwrb-Q_dFzv8XUrN4wC0Bjk+CQJ9PQcNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:24:27 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uEyngkBM6EZURnJGDKZYXbcU0jw
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaXHesO7i+m1MZL6ypY=D-Tbr4frg-Qv2un_jAzoxjSqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net>, Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:24:34 -0000

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> Pradosh,
>
> It is ISP 101 to provide BGP peer configuration by specifying peering
> AS number.
>
> If ISP does it in the same time he needs to apply appropriate policy
> reg handling or propagation of such AS.

so glad those filters are working so well today...

> Simple as this.
>
> If you say that ISP is not aware that his old "remove-private-as" knob
> will not remove newly defined 4 octet private AS range I think such
> ISP should go back to class.

sure works well today.

> Cheers,
> R.
>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat) <pmohapat@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>I think both Tony and Jay forgot that routing and reachability is not
>>>about originator AS .. it is about prefixes they advertise.
>>>
>>>If peering ISP AS chooses to peer with private as or remove private as
>>>from AS-PATH or for completeness substitute with their own it is all
>>>ok. He takes responsibility to route data to such customer(s).
>>>
>>>Any subsequent removal of private as in the path also results in the
>>>same responsibility of the provider who permits private AS for
>>>peering.
>>>
>>>I am not sure why there is concern with it on the list.
>>
>>
>> Not sure you understood the issue Jay was pointing to - but it is a
>> problem worth talking about if we are serious about advancing this draft.
>>
>> Say an enterprise starts using ASN 4278190081. It already has a bunch of
>> ASNs from the 16-bit private AS range and relies on the correct behavior
>> of "remove-private-as" from the ISP. The ISP routers are not upgraded to
>> understand 4278190081 is a private ASN. We get into all sorts of
>> interesting scenarios based on the connectivity graph (changes in traffic
>> pattern come to mind as I know folks compare AS_PATH length taking into
>> account remove-private-as).
>>
>> The 'operational considerations' section does talk about this - but I
>> would like it described in more detail.
>>
>> - Pradosh
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status