IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf

Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 31 July 2023 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC7CC151062 for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 04:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zfnO52VFJnqs for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 04:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 007B4C151060 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 04:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7672073e7b9so267259585a.0 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 04:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1690803329; x=1691408129; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EW2E+JFYY/ejLIzpxadSlegYQgBoY5g+XiYhGaOOPVo=; b=X3uL1/BH1+c61Iyu4bmivdSZAF9TCqy9QLoj4zyGqY58fi2Z2hH+lTOsNj27hq561l mtPfU2M37R9UfYdHXMjC6BYWVQdKuYFOeNSyo/A435NdYPFWHZ2GHA05QjzzaTPi7icF 4Tc2Ae6KwLqLigNDjZxiceN7Aw6bu3LtLjxy0hMwPz5nz+UJav2LuJekoEbJi4N0KA9X 3uavJaua1yUiIysl3+hMFZ5Kj9PDYy1koexn+3MC0ubJUf5AEfSRswFN3IT0jb5dQuCq IVJcwYL5LCnCKJdw+WVB1Q9Klcrw1l87783sHWWFVcrh+dIJ7l2Jj0b4FCy2QSeUet/v viDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1690803329; x=1691408129; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EW2E+JFYY/ejLIzpxadSlegYQgBoY5g+XiYhGaOOPVo=; b=GR9uuItMX4Nnm2GfmBvDr5F1kFXJILNnn6Y3cxGG61dVXL0P+gsmhQDs3kitKN8i2k pkz69RUhg5ULXLFVn4kwhQLU0MeJlEWTlrvozJbTkcKtIHl3l8fvKZHSU34dQNrO8tap w3QCIlJjyPwAYAl7bnKS6oAYxRV9hdZGcJyHOAoiYEhG4QY52uDucLG0655qZSd4ABMZ M3XgpXc5j3At3CUn3GAxmDzJYIi9NJl/sybCKFA2wmn2Vsz7t3ZI5Myx7GrPkCMQ5Rox D/RzB72d++xh4s5L2+ORx6uakaWBSlk+COkTudNJvZOH5EgQf3WpQFDElPVGctzbUqsk SotA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLbdgP+o8s5TDNWjbqp470IlcpFMdQLivnaNTcAkGty+hAuuPUNw bBqQeOVDJtgwuLIHTsBtn93pZ+ozvxc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlFreVgWg52bUMDVbwIijMwCBeu7LUlnVc5tPDmWcytgxehatarOswvBUL3/4Pxez0aR8fswXw==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:8744:0:b0:767:f1e6:a1af with SMTP id j65-20020a378744000000b00767f1e6a1afmr6875335qkd.27.1690803328783; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 04:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2605:a601:91bc:d800:d95c:34b3:e123:1792]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b4-20020a05620a118400b0076c71c1d2f5sm2521202qkk.34.2023.07.31.04.35.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Jul 2023 04:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <DA3B2F30-55BF-4E33-8E7F-D17178AC22C5@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F3E3E776-94CA-4959-BEDD-37B3C46B2997"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:35:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <e986cdf58d654a80a69425c7398e927e@huawei.com>
Cc: "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
To: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <e986cdf58d654a80a69425c7398e927e@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.600.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/DTdOiVT1WXCeT1eYe15Eu7l40gg>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 11:35:30 -0000

Hi Shuwan, 

> On Jul 31, 2023, at 07:25, Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Authors,
>  
> Thank you for contributing this useful document!
>  
> I think I missed some of the discussion information. I saw the following rule and was puzzled:
>  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf/
> 6.1.  BGP SPF NLRI Selection
> …
> 3.  The NLRI received from the BGP SPF speaker with the numerically
>        larger BGP Identifier is preferred.
> …
>  
> The above rule is contrary to the definition of RFC 4271. RFC 4271 defines the following:
> “
> 9.1.2.2.  Breaking Ties (Phase 2)
> …
> f) Remove from consideration all routes other than the route that
>          was advertised by the BGP speaker with the lowest BGP
>          Identifier value.
> ”
>  
> My question is: why are the two rules not defined as the same style?

In BGP SPF, the traditional BGP decision process is completely replaced. 

Thanks,
Acee


>  
> Thanks,
> Shunwan
> _______________________________________________
> Lsvr mailing list
> Lsvr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsvr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email