Re: [Idr] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 13:06 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991631A87BC; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:06:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
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 jN4honUWy72n; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:06:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C008E1A9041; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:06:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.25.6;
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:09:03 -0500
Message-ID: <ouvqvstjq0yjnm8cfv0fwext.1424351342995@email.android.com>
Importance: normal
From: Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.android.email_1441313921560790"
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yrUZj-VGRhGtesPMo5GpwNkwcxQ>
Cc: morrowc@ops-netman.net, idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-as-migration.all@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 19 Feb 2015 13:06:06 -0000
Pete: We debated the bgp versus the rfc. The problem is that these behavior change the fundamental assumptions that bgp in away that impacts sidr. When we first finally take time to revise the bgp specification (rfc4271) to update it to current status if we miss this draft then we will have a whole I'm the new decision tree algorithm. This is important for the data center, mobile backhaul networks, and carrier networks. Due to this fact we decided that bcp did not fit the case. Sue Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> </div><div>Date:02/18/2015 11:36 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> </div><div>Cc: morrowc@ops-netman.net, idr@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-as-migration.all@ietf.org </div><div>Subject: Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) </div><div> </div>Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as-migration/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A procedural DISCUSS, which I expect will be cleared on the call, whatever the outcome: RFC 2026 says this in section 5 regarding what a BCP is for: Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with the technical specifications for hardware and software required for computer communication across interconnected networks. However, since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user service requires that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process for consensus building. That sounds like exactly what this document is doing. Sounds like it should be a BCP. Is there a reason it shouldn't be? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I tend to agree with Alissa's distaste for the style of the second paragraph in section 1. This is a technical document, so I don't see the need to get into the details of how the technology impacts business. I'm sure the people driving the decision to use this document will be fully aware of the business consequences, so no need to really go into them here. Here's a suggestion by way of toning it down: NEW The migration features discussed here are useful to ISPs and organizations of all sizes, but they are critical for ISPs' operations when it is necessary to seamlessly migrate both internal and external BGP speakers from one ASN to a second ASN, such as during a merger, acquisition or divestiture involving two organizations. The overall goal in doing so is to simplify operations through consistent configurations across all BGP speakers in the combined network. In addition, ISPs find it critical to maintain utilization of their network resources by their customers. Because the BGP Path Selection algorithm selects routes with the shortest AS_PATH attribute, an increase in AS_PATH length during or after ASN migration toward downstream transit customers or settlement-free peers would result in significant changes to traffic patterns and decreased utilization by those customers.
- [Idr] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Idr] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-id… Sue Hares
- Re: [Idr] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-id… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Pete Resnicks Discuss on draft-ietf-idr… Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] Pete Resnicks Discuss on draft-ietf-idr… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-id… George, Wes