IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-10.txt> (Internet Exchange BGP Route Server) to Proposed Standard

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 01 June 2016 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BBA12D0BB; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 04:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 NYI18Qe6ILli; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 04:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE3912B027; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 04:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: Idr@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u51BH10j019777 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:17:01 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <574EC42C.3040500@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:17:00 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-10.txt> (Internet Exchange BGP Route Server) to Proposed Standard
References: <20160524224341.14017.96672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6b69a7e81790d6bae23d39ea44ccb01f@lamehost.it> <574DB060.1000801@foobar.org> <c27a95712dc581e393a7cdfc1c12d207@lamehost.it>
In-Reply-To: <c27a95712dc581e393a7cdfc1c12d207@lamehost.it>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3t7nS0gFjnAWls9XZ7QS_tPfstc>
Cc: Idr@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 11:17:08 -0000

Marco Marzetti wrote:
> I agree with you that you can run a route server and insert your ASn in
> the path, but i think that is a lack of common sense which brings only
> contraries and no benefits.
> 
> About RFC2119: It says that "SHOULD NOT" implies a valid reason to
> accept a behavior, but i can't find any.

I agree that it is not a clever thing to do. The valid reason to accept
the behaviour is that it works in practice: some IXPs have done this in
production, in many cases for years.

There is a secondary reason: some rs client bgp stacks don't support the
option to accept an AS path from the RS where the leftmost entry on the
AS path != peeras.

These are not "good" reasons in the sense that they mandate behaviour
which is suboptimal, but they are valid reasons.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email