Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation

William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Wed, 12 March 2014 04:30 UTC

Return-Path: <wherrin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED6C1A03AC for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 Lpn8nRABpBLg for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22e.google.com (mail-ve0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C771A08D3 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id oz11so9464426veb.5 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ElEfTkhWE7rIXfklzz1FoMzRvcpAQ2K0Ep0IgM3r+W8=; b=gs9uUa3udlRdIUPevteLeOeSEU7QwQz+8/XksswY1hS/WVVG4sshgvBOetXSZm5Etq 53i6MoRKMSVUH3ShF48fWwc6QNPqxm9MJ9IkvWqFGUA+x3HXnbYrXL17Dca8wUp6Pofm PM8on+MEd67PBh45sycRwh6ynRxzDIv9TcjbZD8gntY8PhaUbzDq2Vp0oREdgBxnojH9 tO113/P5MCxtclg815FK8M+MglYh/oPDLoNL8roXrRQxHcRjg/SBoezWlpjj/yIucC2S DPM+//aaGuEoCInRLj0TBjCAq9l5Nj2+gEEjMKjKwu1dSM8AHs297UuiCxVIcEjMofX9 duPg==
X-Received: by 10.220.88.204 with SMTP id b12mr30107374vcm.3.1394598631740; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: wherrin@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.38.234 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E02FCDEB6@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
References: <CAP-guGXyxehmCiskATSLOouE0Cx1i9KFroK60r=xWe-Lu7peSA@mail.gmail.com> <8D106691E2F8808-2798-932B@webmail-d162.sysops.aol.com> <CAP-guGU4QCHSOnr99hhvksNa8=zm_OZ9bR34HhHv7WCK55sVvw@mail.gmail.com> <5317511D.20506@joelhalpern.com> <CAP-guGVEXDe=YBgGd4Y_kSTsoRH+osfNvqmd+9KwB5pY3C6x-g@mail.gmail.com> <53176AF6.1040308@joelhalpern.com> <CAP-guGUerSYu+Xy4FJ+3EUTn-j45CAF0hSU=cpR61XeKZW9gvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGWzWC7wuL+HVF5bBitYLFoGBtf0EWoKoDdsMV-2fYRdJA@mail.gmail.com> <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E02FCDEB6@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:30:11 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: yTgHkjbQI17_XH-FuO6y_A3t6Eg
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWHg6hQGni+r3JMnunRHDBcBvN7-wQ79LvDmcQXDqPTyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rrg/FnjDyjStFDp9gPlG82lCt3YKv74
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:30:39 -0000

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>; wrote:
> No, he doesn't.
> W draws a gige from A
> How A connects to C is none of W's business.
> If it's through B, then it is for A and B to negotiate a suitable peering agreement.
> W is using B as backup and wants no traffic from it unless A goes down.
> How do you think the traffic should flow in this case?

Hi Jacob,

A does not connect to C. In the given example, the desired result is
that traffic does not flow from C to A *at all*. The permissible
traffic flows are:

WA
WB
WBC
AB
CB

These traffic flows do not occur:

ABC (A lacks a route for C)
W->A->B->C (A lacks a route for C)

This traffic flow is intended to fail but doesn't because of W's more-specifics:

C->B->A->W

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com  bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004