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

Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it> Wed, 01 June 2016 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <marco@lamehost.it>
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 4459412D1B8; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, 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 kC-EtZc35c8h; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seele.lamehost.it (seele.lamehost.it [80.76.80.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E327D12D194; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by seele.lamehost.it (Postfix, from userid 33) id 21C6A74401; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:46:19 +0200 (CEST)
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-10.txt> (Internet Exchange BGP Route Server) to Proposed Standard
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:rcube.php
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:46:19 +0200
From: Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=NOd5b9bot+pftFUGpAk6ZiWLz=0JPHLjyiLkr=v0-OQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160524224341.14017.96672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6b69a7e81790d6bae23d39ea44ccb01f@lamehost.it> <574DB060.1000801@foobar.org> <c27a95712dc581e393a7cdfc1c12d207@lamehost.it> <574EC42C.3040500@foobar.org> <b89e12cebdffc1324f797b82db1a3ad1@lamehost.it> <CA+b+ER=NOd5b9bot+pftFUGpAk6ZiWLz=0JPHLjyiLkr=v0-OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2ac9d4bb4775263e032842f21b4c8243@lamehost.it>
X-Sender: marco@lamehost.it
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.5
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ecZrIzCYL0pmTbDolaDMa7bTeEY>
Cc: idr wg <Idr@ietf.org>, rraszuk@gmail.com, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.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 12:46:21 -0000

On 2016-06-01 14:35, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Marco,
> 
> Let's also observe that route server we are defining here which
> effectively "reflects" between EBGP sessions has much more wider use
> then Internet Exchange points.
> 
> There is more architectures which use EBGP and for scale full meshing
> them is a headache (at least till we progress the auto discovery
> proposal further). And some of those ASes may be private hence
> inserting your AS during private removal is rather a must.
> 
> I would recommend that we focus on the recommendation how to build IX
> in the companion draft in GROW. Here in IDR we should rather
> accommodate all use cases.
> 
> Many thx,
> Robert
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>;
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-06-01 13:17, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> 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
> 
>  Nick,
> 
> I think that we should define a standard that addresses and corrects
> those non-clever behaviors rather than embrace them.
> 
> My point is: even if they work in the real world, they do because of
> the workarounds that other people put in place and they bring no
> benefits.
> 
> Regards
> 
> --
> Marco

Dear Robert,

Noted, thanks.
Hence "SHOULD NOT" is the right choice.

Regards

-- 
Marco