Re: [savnet] Request WG adoption of draft-wu-savnet-inter-domain-architecture-07

Hi，

Thank you for the reply, it becomes clear to me.

The SAV architecture in the draft seems to employ the same or similar automatic mechanism in style as the route selection for FIB, but there are fundamental differences between the two, which will lead to different executing effects on the device.

Route (FIB) selection is a process for selecting the optimal routes among all those feasible routes. As we known, it was created for this purpose from the first beginning. The key premise of this genenral functionality is that all alternative routes from different protocols always provide exactly accurate packets forwarding in any case. It is not a workable mechanism to seek out relatively more accurate entries, especially when it may tolerate potentially inaccurate SAV entries on a network equipment.

Forwarding and processing packets correctly is the basic task of a device. If the mechanism is just copied from there to here, then perhaps it doesn’t need to state more about the consequence that the mechanism will cause on the network. The new architecture introduced in this draft also cloud not meet the requirements ultimately concluded in draft “draft-ietf-savnet-inter-domain-problem-statement-04”.

It might be valuable as a research effort, especially as it proposed the concept of specific rules table for accurately performing source address validation. But if we treat the main mechanism of this architecture as a potential standard that will emerge into the industry recently, it’s obvious that it cannot stand to the most basic verification of network practices, and I don’t think any vendor will develop and implement complying with it on devices in the foreseeable future.

In addition, the above is not a negation to any new feature for generating accurate source address validating entries(even if it will take effect in patial and explicit scope at first), whether they are derived from the SAV-Specific information or other information available.

Best,

Olaf.S

________________________________
From: Lancheng Qin <qlc19@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2024 3:49
To: Struck Olaf <olafstruck@hotmail.com>
Cc: savnet@ietf.org <savnet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [savnet] Request WG adoption of draft-wu-savnet-inter-domain-architecture-07

Hi Olaf.s,

Correct.

To achieve accurate validation (especially in the incremental deployment scenario), the new SAV solution is suggested to preferentially use higher-priority SAV-related information to generate SAV rules. You can refer to Section 9 for more details.

Best,
Lancheng

-----原始邮件-----
发件人: "Struck Olaf" <olafstruck@hotmail.com>
发送时间: 2024-03-28 19:13:43 (星期四)
收件人:
抄送: "savnet@ietf.org" <savnet@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [savnet] Request WG adoption of draft-wu-savnet-inter-domain-architecture-07

Hi Libin,

Referring to the introduction in section 6, does it mean that if the high-priority entry existed in SIB, then the SIB Manager will select it (e.g., SAV-specific Information, RPIK information) as the SAV Rule that will be executed on forwarding plane, otherwise the relatively low-priority entries (e.g., information from RIB, FIB, etc.) are preferred.

Just to be clear, according to the design concept of the mechanism in this draft, is that a right understanding of how it roughly works?

Best,

Olaf.s

From: Libin Liu<liulb@zgclab.edu.cn>
Sent: 2024-03-23 10:51:57
To: savnet@ietf.org
Subject: [savnet] Request WG adoption of draft-wu-savnet-inter-domain-architecture-07

Dear WG and Chairs,
Following the presentation in the WG meeting on this draft, we would like to request the SAVNET WG adoption for it.
As we presented in the WG meeting, this draft addresses all the comments from our community and all its updates have been discussed during the meetings from IETF 115 to IETF 119, as well as in the mailing list.
Thank you.
Best,
Libin
--
savnet mailing list
savnet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savnet