Re: grow: Last Call: 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan' to Proposed Standard
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Sat, 26 November 2005 16:30 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eg2wT-0007c2-1w; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:30:25 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eg2wR-0007bp-Hk; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:30:23 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29639; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:29:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eg3Fw-00075v-2S; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:50:32 -0500
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jAQGU8m29611; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:30:08 +0200
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:30:08 +0200
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: iesg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E1EeaRT-0003Mo-Aw@newodin.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511261826490.29510@netcore.fi>
References: <E1EeaRT-0003Mo-Aw@newodin.ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 2e8fc473f5174be667965460bd5288ba
Cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: grow: Last Call: 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan' to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG to > consider the following document: > > - 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and > Aggregation Plan ' > <draft-ietf-grow-rfc1519bis-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-12-06. I think this is a useful document to recycle up in the standards track. Unfortunately, as the basic document included a lot of description of operational techniques as of 12 years ago, recycling these kind of documents require some amount of brush-up to be accurate. Those cases that I spotted are below. substantial ----------- o An organization which is multi-homed. Because a multi-homed organization must be advertised into the system by each of its service providers, it is often not feasible to aggregate its routing information into the address space of any one of those providers. Note that the organization still may receive its address assignment out of a service provider's address space (which has other advantages), but a route to the organization's prefix must still be explicitly advertised by all of its service providers. For this reason, the global routing cost for a multi- homed organization is generally the same as it was prior to the adoption of CIDR. ==> this document describes the multihoming approaches at quite bit of length, and I'm not sure if such are appropriate for a standards track document. Certainly, the practices do change, and the text above "must .. be advertised by all.." is not correct. As was discussed in section 5.2, if the site is using one ISP as the primary, and is using a more specific prefix, there exists a valid case of multihoming where advertising the prefix equally through both ISPs is not required. It would be useful to consider to which degree the language of what must be done in multihoming scenarios is needed in this doc, but if it is needed, the tone should possibly be watered down a bit to also address the cornercases like above. .... 4.1 Rules for route advertisement 1. Routing to all destinations must be done on a longest-match basis only. [...] ==> this is an overly simplistic statement. Shouldn't you rather say that longest-match basis must always be the _first_ route selection criteria? (by the way some multicast RPF techniques allow overriding this AFAIR) -- otherwise the text is confusing about the other route selection criteria (such as traffic class for class-based routing, protocol distance, etc.) Note that the degenerate route to prefix 0.0.0.0/0 is used as a default route and MUST be accepted by all implementations. Further, to protect against accidental advertisements of this route via the inter-domain protocol, this route should only be advertised when a router is explicitly configured to do so - never as a non-configured, "default" option. ==> I do not think the "Further, ..." statement is appropriate here -- and I don't think the vendors actually implement this stuff. I suggest just removing the last sentence completely. Multi-homed networks are always explicitly advertised by every service provider through which they are routed even if they are a specific subset of one service provider's aggregate (if they are not, they clearly must be explicitly advertised). It may seem as if the "primary" service provider could advertise the multi-homed site implicitly as part of its aggregate, but the assumption that longest-match routing is always done causes this not to work. ==> see above; not sure if this text is appropriate or useful in this kind of doc (in any case, the same thing seems to be said in different ways in about 3 different places in the doc) These six sites should be represented as six prefixes of varying size within the provider IGP. If, for some reason, the provider were to use an obsolete IGP that doesn't support classless routing or variable-length subnets, then then explicit routes all /24s will have to be carried. ==> what's your definition of IGP? typically you don't carry customer routes or even your own aggregates in your IGP, so the text could probably use refreshing. See [RFC2317] for a much more detailed discussion of DNS delegation with classless addressing. ==> "much more detailed discussion" indeed -- this doc doesn't really address the beef of the classless DNS delegation, i.e., assignments on boundaries other than 8 bits. I'd cut down the amount of DNS text that currently exists or put in an example of about /26, /27, or /30 reverse dns classless delegation. editorial --------- ==> section 11 is confusing editorially as there are double the number of bullet points compared to the before. A different xml2rfc technique (no new bullet point) should be used here. Rule #1 guarantees that the routing algorithm used is consistent across implementations and consistent with other routing protocols, such as OSPF. ==> "_other_ routing protocols" ? so, I guess the document is implicitly written about BGP? Rewording needed.. When that traffic gets to the "child", however, the mid-level *must not* follow the route 192.168.0.0/16 back up to the "parent" ... ==> the first use of the term "mid-level". what do you mean? clarify. (btw, the paragraph was difficult to understand though it described something that's blindingly obvious right now. Maybe it could use a rephrasing.) This can be a useful tool for reducing the amount of routing state that an AS must carry and propagate to its customers and neighbors, proxy aggregation can also create inconsistencies in global routing state. ==> insert "however" or something before "proxy aggregation" ? Assuming a best common practice for network administrators to exchange lists of prefixes to accept from one and other, ==> s/to/is to/ ? 5. Example of new address assignments and routing ==> remove "new" ? this base "root" collection. There is reason to believe that many of these additional entries are exist to solve problems of regional or even local scope and should not need to be globally propagated. ==> remove "are" or "exist" ==> btw, most of these actually don't solve any problem at all, but are just useless junk :) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Last Call: 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (C… Tim Chown
- Last Call: 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)… Frank Ellermann
- Re: grow: Last Call: 'Classless Inter-Domain Rout… Pekka Savola
- Re: grow: Last Call: 'Classless Inter-Domain Rout… Joe Abley