Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation

Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com> Wed, 12 March 2014 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jakob.heitz@ericsson.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 1E6BF1A039A for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0Mt29GWptPov for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB961A0398 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f2f8e000002cdc-77-531fd322f779
Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8E.DD.11484.223DF135; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:23:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 23:35:37 -0400
From: Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>, RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rrg] procedural aggregation
Thread-Index: AQHPOAeN61QLYeD64UmTxBRWQvGQBZrSh7kAgAB2qQCAAAXHgIAAF8EAgAAHDwCABUcYgIAEpxMA///EoDA=
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:35:36 +0000
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWzWC7wuL+HVF5bBitYLFoGBtf0EWoKoDdsMV-2fYRdJA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn67SZflggyP9FhaHbh1ktFi04imL A5PHjpUVHpM3HmYLYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgyvhy/Td7QRNvxbHFS5gaGFdydTFyckgImEhM 3LWZGcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAEUaJbaevQjnLGSWWr77GCFLFJqAj8e16F1iHiIC5xNcXm9lA bGEBTYnjv7+yQMS1JFbtOcQEYSdJ3Hv0D6yGRUBVYv2VE2A2r4CvxLf1CxkhFrxjlvi2+wDY UE6BQIl96/6CLWMEOun7qTVgg5gFxCVuPZnPBHGqgMSSPeehzhaVePn4HyuErSTx8fd8doh6 HYkFuz+xQdjaEssWvmaGWCwocXLmE5YJjKKzkIydhaRlFpKWWUhaFjCyrGLkKC1OLctNNzLc xAiMh2MSbI47GBd8sjzEKM3BoiTO++Wtc5CQQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGxkDP Wh0ZR8lEh43L4zjOLjcvnFr7RWaWV+kam52TOnm2LNTPCX7bHRCisvHy1DDLeOZpV6qWSqWH LL0TwTO3se5NPpOI0pHpfQc8ZM/Nn7VXstypqKhu6c3TkpIPljYKLTilfLTi8ccH+aI590rE RRfVMAbUsm2RFuX65FtTvbFwU6la2O/nSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAwBljwFUCAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rrg/I0cRxYrQoKLqgsT4720IaEMLuzE
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 03:35:47 -0000

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?

Cheers,
Jakob.

-----Original Message-----
From: rrg [mailto:rrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:59 PM
To: RRG
Subject: Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation

Hi Folks,

Here's another circumstance worth mentioning. This particular one is an undesirable case that exists in BGP today. It would be better if it didn't work. When I get to procedural aggregation, it'll be important to consider whether my notions make this scenario worse.

You have three networks: A, B and C. A peers with B, B peers with C.

A-B-C

You have a customer, W. W buys transit service from A (gige) and B (T1).

A-B-C
| /
W

W announces 10.1.2.0/23 to B and announces 10.1.2.0/24 plus 10.1.3.0/24 to A.

Because W is a customer, B announces 10.1.2.0/23 to C but as soon as the packet arrives at B from C, B sends it to A because of the more specific route it heard from A.

This allows W to draw a gige of traffic through B even though he's only paying for a T1.

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

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg