Re: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 27 July 2015 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8CC1B33AD for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 rTG-qmR-pnyY for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DCC1B33A2 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A62D41E378; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:35:23 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Antoni Przygienda <antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
Message-ID: <20150727203522.GB16809@pfrc.org>
References: <etPan.55ae8fbf.2ac767e3.36f@corretto.local> <18774_1437550328_55AF46F8_18774_5612_26_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A3667@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150722073931.GB30425@puck.nether.net> <etPan.55af51be.69dfac96.36f@corretto.local> <9439_1437568985_55AF8FD9_9439_5180_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A398C@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1D97D09.29830%acee@cisco.com> <20150727155051.GF24197@pfrc.org> <7A2D9D5A-CCAF-4C8B-B2BC-C8DC1F05F5AF@cisco.com> <20150727191203.GA16809@pfrc.org> <2E4BB27CAB87BF43B4207C0E55860F180EA898A4@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2E4BB27CAB87BF43B4207C0E55860F180EA898A4@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/SQXV1pMBj0SdS4PMwE5rp6yUZ7Q>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:33:14 -0000

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 08:20:51PM +0000, Antoni Przygienda wrote:
> > That's really where we're heading with regard to this model.  While BGP is
> > obviously the first target, this is also the beginnings of a fundamental policy
> > algebra that multiple protocols may share.
> > 
> [Tony saiz:] 
> 
> Interesting, we're bringing RPSL back ?

I missed the RPSL wars, but got to heavily soak in their results for a few
years. :-)

I think we'll see this go a lot further than RPSL since we're really dealing
with internal router configuration rather than trying to express such policy
in an inter-provider scenario.

>  And if so, providers are willing to share their policies finally ;-)  ? 

Not a chance.

What's mildly amusing is that some discussions about route-leak mitigation
(see discussion in grow and (s)idr) may have implications about "disclosing
enough" to do the job.  I owe those WGs a writeup of the idea.

-- Jeff