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
>>>
>>