IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Thu, 28 February 2019 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F55130F2D for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:09:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 qHtCVA0mCfGY for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:08:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:5::26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 295BC130F26 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:08:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <job@ntt.net>) id 1gzQ78-000GfJ-1H (job@us.ntt.net) for sidrops@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:08:58 +0000
Received: by mail-ot1-f48.google.com with SMTP id c18so18464779otl.13 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:08:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXFULo/1Gr8YkA0siAye6FxKBwev4wHY31ETYqGR3OzjaNoGpcx f6c48764O3S/87iswxfmnCdt1k9gRFUpjWpANBE+Gw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxmWhVDijOZhIpxtYt5dpiidlvLHg/pCLppaDHBaAxLfEV3vn4IG3G5uuFIseaaBa4lWbT9uCay9QvHuXM+6/g=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:70cc:: with SMTP id w12mr648317otj.101.1551377337383; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:08:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <m2fts968ei.wl-randy@psg.com> <BD686FC4-58B7-48FC-85EC-EEC5C2F30B53@vigilsec.com> <20190227215142.GB21642@pfrc.org> <3EF81391-A613-4F10-B636-E29ABB5643DA@vigilsec.com> <7735E727-E19E-493B-ACAE-38F6A1A4BA75@nist.gov> <m2ef7s4wtx.wl-randy@psg.com> <0B6FBEFD-DF57-4613-9B66-ED4A9E8302A2@nist.gov> <m27edk4llm.wl-randy@psg.com> <0319BBE5-1991-4513-8E20-7AD72E991074@nist.gov> <m2va133l9t.wl-randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2va133l9t.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 03:08:46 +0900
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACWOCC-PFf7pMVF2kx9Uyy5OSqCu7Sk1iS6mPPDA2-1Rwq0j-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACWOCC-PFf7pMVF2kx9Uyy5OSqCu7Sk1iS6mPPDA2-1Rwq0j-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "Montgomery, Douglas (Fed)" <dougm@nist.gov>, sidrops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001b95b90582f82fd6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/HZAsATvgSSTNDvHibnbp1Fmkri8>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:09:01 -0000

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:55 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

> > Are you saying no one uses the RFC8097 extended community in iBGP?
>
> not to my knowledge.


I don’t use 8097 in traditional IBGP context, but I use 8097 quite a bit.
For instance to carry information to a looking glass web frontend, or to a
traffic analyzer (like pmacct), or to mark routes to aid debugging [1]

Could’ve used locally defined communities, but by using something defined
by IETF I have one less thing to document.

Just my two cents.

Kind regards,

Job

[1] For instance, BIRD allows the operator to (sort of) modify Adj-RIB-In
and add/remove communities on routes which didn’t make it to the Loc-RIB.

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email