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 12:12 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 A7AD112D190; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:12:27 -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 NR7C5oVBBack; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seele.lamehost.it (seele.lamehost.it [80.76.80.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6721D12D18F; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by seele.lamehost.it (Postfix, from userid 33) id C5EFD74401; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:12:23 +0200 (CEST)
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
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 14:12:23 +0200
From: Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>
In-Reply-To: <574EC42C.3040500@foobar.org>
References: <20160524224341.14017.96672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6b69a7e81790d6bae23d39ea44ccb01f@lamehost.it> <574DB060.1000801@foobar.org> <c27a95712dc581e393a7cdfc1c12d207@lamehost.it> <574EC42C.3040500@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <b89e12cebdffc1324f797b82db1a3ad1@lamehost.it>
X-Sender: marco@lamehost.it
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.5
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nWTAeg4TPN1BfPclYvUqTtJjJd0>
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 12:12:28 -0000

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