Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 08 March 2022 20:33 UTC
Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 5C7803A170A
for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 12:33:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01,
URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=raszuk.net
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 abjRA3DAPIUU for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 8 Mar 2022 12:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2f.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2f.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2f])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CA893A1708
for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 12:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2f.google.com with SMTP id bk1so183691vkb.5
for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 12:33:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=w+v18HPFnunaJk8GodX8KHFv4pg2QkeQUDPfxLnGbbA=;
b=CZb3mQjALBbp2eJtUV1TeH2Vt9YjaeQ+mdi22nYXFUV81JDveJHGc6Xi2UMsUM3csq
7VJwi3LQTuOGYuXvHeuNia/0zJ8PIIvyLusMlxif5lL+B+oc9+9kqdxbVZ8VlPCK/tsn
5egF8shnNJWB46/0T/Yn15pMudcwzZ1lAtDI4lg13EhW7vfQ0iGyaQHD32D2TAfDn6ah
4RBnlYcgXxYkJI5o+7ixq/V4RBs4hoM8wiKcP0Lkv/SO7Bezp7Ph5+BKISZIwBaOZ7oK
XwhO0jvB2vVii76OmVlXcrA7vF/fkZBMJBRR9aeFY+Qh1w2PnMPZF1ahupyljv5y0q3q
ssVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=w+v18HPFnunaJk8GodX8KHFv4pg2QkeQUDPfxLnGbbA=;
b=0eEU4kHLUkOQCtvepiV/JmrXftY3yLWIrL6BJ/g0J/QTek0sne6llwT99GsbhIAYf0
blpFZuWvwYDGi1wv9PQ4Q5mHRU0Xou4a2VejebjMS1Pwpn3P328xkg2DwR3R5OfCqb71
KysTTDv3QAJWawmqsbmltMEloUjCco+Baiwa/Wcn/WoCESoqChBSctkkdbJQL+Q4gpUY
bb6ZSyZB06LPTm6+4fHtmHI6hJdwyEpqO9XwYfrrvaYiIDp/CD1xji7ijWjQByemDIWc
0FBZX2Ruz+8QEBSYnlIae0hjgDN8XrpndCB524nr0QRndWlYj37ZUcdQR2OgLsUD9szn
TtTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531h7I8Gbobjm9HlFbKZmOzrPjmdHDfBrpxwFsnY1YKaF7dkrDQw
j6OkCJFq7mg4WHzAgMFG/v1JHBlCGzMhOB/KeqHEvw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzy8AjqPjsEZnZqAjjxA+Ste8BxpsFILcBzHltUiDVCW34SGX3EFH3b+EtuM4lb9p2pzrcD/XJpri9RbQbJLfc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:12b1:b0:32d:7e4b:91b7 with SMTP id
j17-20020a05612212b100b0032d7e4b91b7mr8467925vkp.18.1646771618233; Tue, 08
Mar 2022 12:33:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SA1PR09MB8142093BE50A27A7EED132D884099@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
<CAL9jLaaB9k9-KjcERxM_TBqTduK1N+DaM=N8rpF9to0NdAQmzA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOj+MMFaNDt+5siiaZBM515bD66kX-NW5jyFkv+G3XzABQXi3A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL9jLaaB0LO5wuA48gSU4ek3KdoYHQ1quxPVaymD2Fv42jEsCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaB0LO5wuA48gSU4ek3KdoYHQ1quxPVaymD2Fv42jEsCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 21:34:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGa7uaWkLkm-6rfDYgaV_AMnAPpX20WQHqv5iioXqXCXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sriram,
Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram=40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>,
"grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054da0605d9bae5f6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/dxawERJf8tSZcVLyh7647a8Yw00>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 13:29:22 -0800
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question
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: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 20:33:46 -0000
Right - but IMO route leaking can happen both in the Internet or in customer <- via IXP -> content provider interconnects. And in the latter case - especially for those with open peering policy - often going via RS. After all this is how route servers are mainly used today :) So both sides will be peering to IXP RS while IXP RS will (in most cases) not appear in the AS_PATH. Kind regards, R. On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:26 PM Christopher Morrow < christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:15 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: > >> Well I think the answer is - it depends. >> >> First IXP fabric can be used as pure L3 share LAN or can be used (and it >> is often the case) as a p2p emulated VLAN over such L3 shared LAN. >> >> Now if this is L3 shared LAN still customer and ISP may peer directly and >> no third party traffic would be accepted at either end. >> >> If we talk about emulating L2 IXP fabric becomes just an emulated circuit >> and from the perspective of routing it a p2p interface. >> >> Sure the other aspects of the IXP quality, port monitoring, >> oversubscription etc... always will apply but there are ways to mitigate or >> handle those in real IXPs. >> >> > I don't dispute your content here, except that Sriram's question was about > seeing 'customer routes via the RS'... which I think would obviate the > emulation examples you provided. > (well in a bunch of cases it would, you COULD hook up some tomfoolery to > get this to work, but... that sounds complex and prone to disaster) > > >> Best, >> R. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:05 PM Christopher Morrow < >> christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 2:36 PM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) >>> <kotikalapudi.sriram=40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This question has relevance to the ASPA method for route leak detection. >>>> >>>> Is it possible that an ISP AS A peers with a customer AS C via a >>>> non-transparent IXP AS B? >>>> IOW, the AS path in routes propagated by the ISP A for customer C's >>>> prefixes looks like this: A B C. >>>> I.e., can the AS of a non-transparent IXP/RS appear in an AS path in >>>> the middle between an ISP and its customer? >>>> >>>> >>> it seems unlikely to me that an ISP would pick up a 'customer' (someone >>> that pays them to transport packets) at an IXP fabric. >>> Might it happen? sure? is it messy? yes! >>> >>> 1) that's probably a shared port >>> 2) there are other folk feeding routes and packets into the mix >>> 3) how many came through the 'customer' port (which you can't really >>> know easily) vs other participants on the ix >>> 4) what capacity planning could the 'customer' do here? (none, basically >>> with respect to the remote ISP port) >>> >>> Your question might work also as: >>> "ISP A has a customer C on a direct link in location Y. >>> ISP A is present at IXP-Z, so is customer C, though they do not >>> bilaterally peer (not do they interconnect at the IXP). >>> ISP A can still see Customer C's routes through the IXP-Z Route >>> Server." >>> >>> that seems plausible, but not a desired outcome for the ISP :) since >>> they will be unlikely to collect pesos for the traffic >>> which MAY pass across that interconnect. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GROW mailing list >>> GROW@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >>> >>
- [Sidrops] IXP Route Server question Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
- Re: [Sidrops] IXP Route Server question Christopher Morrow
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Christopher Morrow
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Nick Hilliard
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Christopher Morrow
- Re: [Sidrops] IXP Route Server question Ben Maddison
- Re: [Sidrops] IXP Route Server question Randy Bush
- Re: [Sidrops] IXP Route Server question Randy Bush
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
- Re: [Sidrops] IXP Route Server question Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Nick Hilliard
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Ben Maddison
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Zhuangshunwan
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Nick Hilliard
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Randy Bush
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Nick Hilliard
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Zhuangshunwan
- Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question Mosher, Rob