From yakov@juniper.net Mon Jun 1 10:41:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7DB3A70C2 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjlnRwcuGwbi for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63B63A6ECC for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSiQS2pvr1cmD9IMW6ZrqW45n/+mzfxa8@postini.com; Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:41:47 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:10 -0700 Received: from p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.46]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:10 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp55.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.132]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:10 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:09 -0700 Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n51Hf9L53961 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-ID: <200906011741.n51Hf9L53961@magenta.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org From: Yakov Rekhter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <91306.1243878069.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:09 -0700 Sender: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2009 17:41:09.0110 (UTC) FILETIME=[25C6B160:01C9E2E0] Subject: [Idr] IETF 75 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:41:47 -0000 Folks, Its about time to start thinking about agenda items for the next IETF. Please forward any IDR agenda items you might have to Sue and myself. The deadline is July 17, 2009. And if you plan to make a presentation, please also keep in mind the rule "no Internet Draft - no time slot". Sue & Yakov. From paul@jakma.org Tue Jun 9 09:38:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DAB53A67D7 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:38:48 -0700 (PDT) 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=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwNDk0enCjgQ for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hibernia.jakma.org (cl-9.dub-01.ie.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:770:100:8::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1ED3A6923 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from punchin.gla.jakma.org (punchin.gla.jakma.org [81.168.24.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hibernia.jakma.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n59GcUwp015222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:38:44 +0100 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:38:30 +0100 (BST) From: Paul Jakma To: Inter-Domain Routing List Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Mail-Copies-To: paul@jakma.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1471075816-1508800579-1244565524=:16794" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.1.1 (hibernia.jakma.org [212.17.55.49]); Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:38:44 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Idr] MRAI revision implementation survey X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: paul@jakma.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:38:48 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1471075816-1508800579-1244565524=:16794 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Hi, I have attached a really quick survey, to help determine the current state of MRAI values and so help draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-00.txt to progress. I would be very grateful to anyone who could take a few minutes to fill it in and reply! thanks, -- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: You worry too much about your job. Stop it. You are not paid enough to worry. ---1471075816-1508800579-1244565524=:16794 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; name=bgp-mrai-dep-survey.txt Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=bgp-mrai-dep-survey.txt CUltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIFN1cnZleSBvbiB0aGUgQkdQIE1pbmltdW0gUmVh ZHZlcnRpc2VtZW50IEludGVydmFsDQoJLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0N CgkNCk9yZ2FuaXNhdGlvbjoJDQpJbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbjoJDQoNClFVRVNU SU9OUw0KLS0tLS0tLS0tDQoNCjEuIFdoYXQgYXJlIHRoZSBkZWZhdWx0IHZh bHVlcyBmb3IgeW91ciBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbidzIE1SQUksIGZvciBpQkdQ IGFuZA0KZUJHUCwgYW5kIGZvciBhbnkvYWxsIEFGSS9TQUZJcyAoaWYgZGVm YXVsdHMgdmFyeSBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZW0pOg0KDQppQkdQOiANCmVCR1A6DQoN Cg0KMi4gQ2FuIHRoZSBNUkFJIHZhbHVlIGJlIGNvbmZpZ3VyZWQ6DQoNCmEp IGdsb2JhbGx5PyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBZZXMvTm8NCmEpIE9uIGEgcGVy LXBlZXIgYmFzaXM/ICAgICBZZXMvTm8NCmEpIE9uIGEgcGVyLUFGSS9TQUZJ IGJhc2lzPyBZZXMvbm8NCg0KDQozLiBEb2VzIHlvdXIgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRp b24gYXBwbHkgdGhlIE1SQUkgdG8gd2l0aGRyYXdhbHM/IFllcy9Obw0K ---1471075816-1508800579-1244565524=:16794-- From jgs@juniper.net Thu Jun 25 09:20:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254C728C17C for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:20:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R6et8MbCJ8mm for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3183928C121 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkOjcexEOJV0PRppFnqrVPrtMoZDABOI@postini.com; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:20:55 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.375.2; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:06:21 -0700 Received: from p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.46]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:06:21 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp55.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.132]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:06:20 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:06:20 -0700 Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n5PG6KL57861 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:06:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net) Message-ID: From: "John G. Scudder" To: idr List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:06:19 -0400 References: <20090625160323.5BD4C3A6DDD@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 16:06:20.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1178760:01C9F5AE] Subject: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-chen-bgp-ext-opt-param-01 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:20:38 -0000 FYI. This version uses a simpler method of encoding the extended length than -00 did. --John Begin forwarded message: > From: IETF I-D Submission Tool > Date: June 25, 2009 12:03:23 PM GMT-04:00 > To: John Scudder > Cc: "enkechen@cisco.com" > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-chen-bgp-ext-opt-param-01 > > > A new version of I-D, draft-chen-bgp-ext-opt-param-01.txt has been > successfuly submitted by John Scudder and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-chen-bgp-ext-opt-param > Revision: 01 > Title: Extended Optional Parameters Length for BGP OPEN Message > Creation_date: 2009-06-25 > WG ID: Independent Submission > Number_of_pages: 5 > > Abstract: > The Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN message as defined in the > base BGP specification are limited to 255 octets due to a one-octet > length field. BGP Capabilities are carried in this field and may > foreseeably exceed 255 octets in the future, leading to concern about > this limitation. > > In this document we extend the BGP OPEN length field in a backward- > compatible manner. The Parameter Length field of individual Optional > Parameters is similarly extended. > > > > The IETF Secretariat. From jgs@juniper.net Thu Jun 25 12:04:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0313A67D9 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZeUUYF3zt-Ov for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og117.obsmtp.com (exprod7og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6FB3A6F9A for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob117.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkPKCNtgmqRZurFDBSarWfXjjHvb67Ar@postini.com; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:04:45 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.375.2; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:36:14 -0700 Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:36:15 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp55.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.132]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:36:14 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:36:14 -0700 Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n5PIa2L69603 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net) Message-ID: <06AB6078-835E-437B-AB13-F64AD78E4C35@juniper.net> From: "John G. Scudder" To: idr List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:36:01 -0400 References: <20090625183020.9B10F3A69E1@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2009 18:36:14.0094 (UTC) FILETIME=[D19D3AE0:01C9F5C3] Subject: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:04:37 -0000 FYI. --John Begin forwarded message: > From: IETF I-D Submission Tool > Date: June 25, 2009 2:30:20 PM GMT-04:00 > To: John Scudder > Cc: "uttaro@att.com" , "pmohapat@cisco.com" > > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain- > lite-00 > > > A new version of I-D, draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00.txt has > been successfuly submitted by John Scudder and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite > Revision: 00 > Title: RT-Constrain Lite for Provider Edge Routers > Creation_date: 2009-06-25 > WG ID: Independent Submission > Number_of_pages: 5 > > Abstract: > RFC 4684, "Constrained Route Distribution for Border Gateway > Protocol/MultiProtocol Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol > (IP) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" provides a powerful and general > means for BGP speakers to exchange and propagate Route Target > reachability information which is used for cooperative route > filtering. However, the complexity of implementing the entire > specification may have impeded its widespread deployment. This > document specifies the subset of functionality which is required for > a provider edge router ("PE") to originate Route Target NLRI. Such > PEs need not implement any filtering functionality. > > > > The IETF Secretariat. > > From raszuk@cisco.com Sat Jun 27 08:29:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54433A6C87; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:29:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.392, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ng18LZyFi+a2; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5F228C218; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,301,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="333038847" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2009 15:29:33 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n5RFTXuQ012674; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:29:33 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5RFTXfe007338; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:29:33 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:29:33 -0700 Received: from [10.21.70.167] ([10.21.70.167]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:29:32 -0700 Message-ID: <4A463ADA.1030503@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:29:30 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John G. Scudder" References: <20090625183020.9B10F3A69E1@core3.amsl.com> <06AB6078-835E-437B-AB13-F64AD78E4C35@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <06AB6078-835E-437B-AB13-F64AD78E4C35@juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2009 15:29:33.0153 (UTC) FILETIME=[1228C510:01C9F73C] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3502; t=1246116573; x=1246980573; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=raszuk@cisco.com; z=From:=20Robert=20Raszuk=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Idr]=20Fwd=3A=20New=20Version=20Notifi cation=20for=09draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 |Sender:=20; bh=G4bxr19TJdHhgxMPDE1JBr1M3Ppr0oybTFiokDCunz4=; b=tznrHbWJbEf/DkGSOO7bN0YhQ3LOq22KNNze8ZrOU/wEpdZlbZRbEzW9C3 kOiv578MHRdT3uMDcdzWHs4qlu2hJqDmzA6t6Lif5LozN2SQUVM9k/kfhdqd W6lr845ftx; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: idr List , L3VPN Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:29:34 -0000 Hello John, Let me share with you two observations: Observation #1: Let's notice that original RFC4684 already well defines rt-constrain lite in it's published text: "A BGP speaker MAY participate in the distribution of Route Target information without using the learned information for purposes of VPN NLRI output route filtering, although this is discouraged." As RT-constrain lite draft does exactly the above paragraph it is at least redundant. Observation #2: The original RFC4684 says: "A VPN NLRI route should be advertised to a peer that participates in the exchange of Route Target membership information if that peer has advertised either the default Route Target membership NLRI or a Route Target membership NLRI containing any of the targets contained in the extended communities attribute of the VPN route in question." RT-C lite says: "Specifically, the PE need only implement the ability to send Route Target Membership NLRI; it need not have the ability to receive, store and filter upon such information." That directly violates RFC4684 as quoted above. After exchanged the 4684 capabilities the PE should wait for the default rt filter or atomic one before it starts any VPN route advertisement. The same for the RR side ... RR may expect after negotiating RFC4684 capability not to receive any routes from a peer until it has send default rt NLRI or an atomic one. That may be used for peer prioritization as an example. Conclusion of the observation #2 above leads me to believe that reception and parsing of at least default rt-filter by RT-Constrain lite is required. But I am more interested to find out what is missing today in RFC4684 in the light of the first observation. Cheers, R. > FYI. > > --John > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool >> Date: June 25, 2009 2:30:20 PM GMT-04:00 >> To: John Scudder >> Cc: "uttaro@att.com" , "pmohapat@cisco.com" >> >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00.txt has >> been successfuly submitted by John Scudder and posted to the IETF >> repository. >> >> Filename: draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite >> Revision: 00 >> Title: RT-Constrain Lite for Provider Edge Routers >> Creation_date: 2009-06-25 >> WG ID: Independent Submission >> Number_of_pages: 5 >> >> Abstract: >> RFC 4684, "Constrained Route Distribution for Border Gateway >> Protocol/MultiProtocol Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol >> (IP) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" provides a powerful and general >> means for BGP speakers to exchange and propagate Route Target >> reachability information which is used for cooperative route >> filtering. However, the complexity of implementing the entire >> specification may have impeded its widespread deployment. This >> document specifies the subset of functionality which is required for >> a provider edge router ("PE") to originate Route Target NLRI. Such >> PEs need not implement any filtering functionality. >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From jgs@juniper.net Sat Jun 27 11:19:09 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAAB3A6883; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:19:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ucTvgJyYBS5K; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og122.obsmtp.com (exprod7og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204F03A6870; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob122.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkZip343Yo8FNz7QJFHZz8p2ykPP7ktE@postini.com; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:19:26 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.375.2; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:17:13 -0700 Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:17:13 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp56.jnpr.net ([172.24.60.77]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:17:13 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:17:12 -0700 Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n5RIHBL98818; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:17:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net) Message-ID: <9AE4DF10-F7F6-4976-A779-929D47478CB3@juniper.net> From: "John G. Scudder" To: "raszuk@cisco.com" In-Reply-To: <4A463ADA.1030503@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:17:10 -0400 References: <20090625183020.9B10F3A69E1@core3.amsl.com> <06AB6078-835E-437B-AB13-F64AD78E4C35@juniper.net> <4A463ADA.1030503@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2009 18:17:12.0859 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E3616B0:01C9F753] Cc: idr List , L3VPN Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:09 -0000 Robert, thanks for your comments. Your main question is essentially what the contribution of rt- constrain-lite is. Fair enough. There are two contributions, to my way of thinking. The first and more important is that (as I will explain below) there are normative changes between rt-contrain-lite and rt-constrain. The two are interoperable, but not identical. The second is that for many deployment scenarios (specifically PE routers) full-on rt-constrain is more than is needed. The rt-constrain-lite document would provide a single document that could be cited in procurements, rather than either citing full rt-constrain (even though it provides more than is required) or citing full rt-constrain with caveats (which is a messy way of doing it). As for the normative changes: you actually identify this yourself, in your message. As you point out, rt-constrain-lite specifically exempts the PE from having to honor filtering for received rt- constrain routes. This is an interoperable difference between the two. As an aside, you've also inadvertently pointed out a bug in the rt- constrain specification. The first paragraph you quote: > "A BGP speaker MAY participate in the distribution of Route Target > information without using the learned information for purposes of > VPN > NLRI output route filtering, although this is discouraged." would not seem to be compatible with the second one you quote: > "A VPN NLRI route should be advertised to a peer that > participates in > the exchange of Route Target membership information if that peer > has > advertised either the default Route Target membership NLRI or a > Route > Target membership NLRI containing any of the targets contained in > the > extended communities attribute of the VPN route in question." although I guess you can observe that the latter paragraph is a "should" and not a "must". (If you take this point of view you would also have to agree that rt-constrain-lite does not "directly violate" RFC4684.) Regarding your secondary question about the PE honoring, or not, rt- constrain route filtering -- if the PE were required to do this, that is the same as requiring it to do a full RFC4684 implementation, which would defeat the point of a "lite" flavor. I don't think it's reasonable to say "just parse default but nothing else" since it's perfectly permissible for the RR to never send a default, which would leave the PE stuck forever. However, this does lead me to consider that you could ask the PE to wait until it has received any rt-constrain route at all from the RR before advertising VPN routes. This heuristic would seem to be almost the same as waiting for the default route without having the same failure mode if the default is never sent. Regards, --John On Jun 27, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Observation #1: > > Let's notice that original RFC4684 already well defines rt-constrain > lite in it's published text: > > "A BGP speaker MAY participate in the distribution of Route Target > information without using the learned information for purposes of > VPN > NLRI output route filtering, although this is discouraged." > > As RT-constrain lite draft does exactly the above paragraph it is at > least redundant. > > Observation #2: > > The original RFC4684 says: > > "A VPN NLRI route should be advertised to a peer that > participates in > the exchange of Route Target membership information if that peer > has > advertised either the default Route Target membership NLRI or a > Route > Target membership NLRI containing any of the targets contained in > the > extended communities attribute of the VPN route in question." > > RT-C lite says: > > "Specifically, the PE need only implement the ability to send Route > Target Membership NLRI; it need not have the ability to receive, > store and filter upon such information." > > That directly violates RFC4684 as quoted above. After exchanged the > 4684 > capabilities the PE should wait for the default rt filter or atomic > one > before it starts any VPN route advertisement. > > The same for the RR side ... RR may expect after negotiating RFC4684 > capability not to receive any routes from a peer until it has send > default rt NLRI or an atomic one. That may be used for peer > prioritization as an example. > > Conclusion of the observation #2 above leads me to believe that > reception and parsing of at least default rt-filter by RT-Constrain > lite > is required. > > But I am more interested to find out what is missing today in > RFC4684 in > the light of the first observation. From raszuk@cisco.com Sat Jun 27 13:32:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FFB3A6CF4; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:32:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-2MMtLTGNAo; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA55A3A6CC4; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:32:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,301,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="333130801" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2009 20:32:32 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n5RKWWnF031380; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:32:32 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5RKWWgI014275; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:32:32 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:32:32 -0700 Received: from [10.21.71.134] ([10.21.71.134]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:32:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4681DD.8090207@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:32:29 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John G. Scudder" References: <20090625183020.9B10F3A69E1@core3.amsl.com> <06AB6078-835E-437B-AB13-F64AD78E4C35@juniper.net> <4A463ADA.1030503@cisco.com> <9AE4DF10-F7F6-4976-A779-929D47478CB3@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <9AE4DF10-F7F6-4976-A779-929D47478CB3@juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2009 20:32:31.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[65701960:01C9F766] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6146; t=1246134752; x=1246998752; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=raszuk@cisco.com; z=From:=20Robert=20Raszuk=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Idr]=20Fwd=3A=20New=20Version=20Notifi cation=20for=20draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 |Sender:=20; bh=kwq34NzxScZrC284AY5Dd9V7Dy5IMlFoehgVQxFcl90=; b=EpWbxQTLVZma6AOGLwbpuIpZjopy4tbLakanHafQUlSzGRwuMrqsuba+vY FKdTsZFCFhc4EevMqABdoSMGpbFc2c0ZjX0KTbJ7R8DVq0yFtq5tvRml7MAS M/oPLUVsGu; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: idr List , L3VPN Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:32:17 -0000 Hi John, I am completely not convinced that what is proposed in RTC-lite draft is not already covered and can be implemented by supporting mandatory protocol extension contained in the main RFC4684 specification without violating it. WFIW I can easily see the full RFC4684 implementation allowing to drop incoming filters (with exceptions or not) on inbound reducing it's further processing and storing by BGP. Such exceptions may include allowing to accept default filter in order not to be subject of delayed advertisement of VPN routes due to a required otherwise timeout mechanism. My quote provided below seems to be proving my point of view. Perhaps others co-authors of RFC4684 as well as implementors can comment on it. On the practical note I seriously doubt that any commercial implementation of L3VPN would choose to only support RTC-lite and not full RFC4684 in it's operating system. Would you agree that this draft should be progressed only if we would be able to find an implementation that supports it and not full RFC4684 ? And as soon as such implementation would gain full RFC4684 support we either find another one supporting only RTC-lite or move RTC-lite to historical ? Cheers, R. > Robert, thanks for your comments. > > Your main question is essentially what the contribution of > rt-constrain-lite is. Fair enough. There are two contributions, to my > way of thinking. The first and more important is that (as I will > explain below) there are normative changes between rt-contrain-lite and > rt-constrain. The two are interoperable, but not identical. The second > is that for many deployment scenarios (specifically PE routers) full-on > rt-constrain is more than is needed. The rt-constrain-lite document > would provide a single document that could be cited in procurements, > rather than either citing full rt-constrain (even though it provides > more than is required) or citing full rt-constrain with caveats (which > is a messy way of doing it). > > As for the normative changes: you actually identify this yourself, in > your message. As you point out, rt-constrain-lite specifically exempts > the PE from having to honor filtering for received rt-constrain routes. > This is an interoperable difference between the two. > > As an aside, you've also inadvertently pointed out a bug in the > rt-constrain specification. The first paragraph you quote: > >> "A BGP speaker MAY participate in the distribution of Route Target >> information without using the learned information for purposes of VPN >> NLRI output route filtering, although this is discouraged." > > would not seem to be compatible with the second one you quote: > >> "A VPN NLRI route should be advertised to a peer that participates in >> the exchange of Route Target membership information if that peer has >> advertised either the default Route Target membership NLRI or a Route >> Target membership NLRI containing any of the targets contained in the >> extended communities attribute of the VPN route in question." > > although I guess you can observe that the latter paragraph is a "should" > and not a "must". (If you take this point of view you would also have > to agree that rt-constrain-lite does not "directly violate" RFC4684.) > > Regarding your secondary question about the PE honoring, or not, > rt-constrain route filtering -- if the PE were required to do this, that > is the same as requiring it to do a full RFC4684 implementation, which > would defeat the point of a "lite" flavor. I don't think it's > reasonable to say "just parse default but nothing else" since it's > perfectly permissible for the RR to never send a default, which would > leave the PE stuck forever. > > However, this does lead me to consider that you could ask the PE to wait > until it has received any rt-constrain route at all from the RR before > advertising VPN routes. This heuristic would seem to be almost the same > as waiting for the default route without having the same failure mode if > the default is never sent. > > Regards, > > --John > > On Jun 27, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> Observation #1: >> >> Let's notice that original RFC4684 already well defines rt-constrain >> lite in it's published text: >> >> "A BGP speaker MAY participate in the distribution of Route Target >> information without using the learned information for purposes of VPN >> NLRI output route filtering, although this is discouraged." >> >> As RT-constrain lite draft does exactly the above paragraph it is at >> least redundant. >> >> Observation #2: >> >> The original RFC4684 says: >> >> "A VPN NLRI route should be advertised to a peer that participates in >> the exchange of Route Target membership information if that peer has >> advertised either the default Route Target membership NLRI or a Route >> Target membership NLRI containing any of the targets contained in the >> extended communities attribute of the VPN route in question." >> >> RT-C lite says: >> >> "Specifically, the PE need only implement the ability to send Route >> Target Membership NLRI; it need not have the ability to receive, >> store and filter upon such information." >> >> That directly violates RFC4684 as quoted above. After exchanged the 4684 >> capabilities the PE should wait for the default rt filter or atomic one >> before it starts any VPN route advertisement. >> >> The same for the RR side ... RR may expect after negotiating RFC4684 >> capability not to receive any routes from a peer until it has send >> default rt NLRI or an atomic one. That may be used for peer >> prioritization as an example. >> >> Conclusion of the observation #2 above leads me to believe that >> reception and parsing of at least default rt-filter by RT-Constrain lite >> is required. >> >> But I am more interested to find out what is missing today in RFC4684 in >> the light of the first observation. > > From jgs@juniper.net Mon Jun 29 09:52:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937523A6BCF; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zNOkbgcLV1dj; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02453A6B51; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkjxMSMZw6o0MRJtlUVtjB+GVXUPhwa6@postini.com; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:52:23 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.375.2; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:21:30 -0700 Received: from p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.46]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:21:30 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp56.jnpr.net ([172.24.60.77]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:21:30 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:21:29 -0700 Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n5TGLSL50382; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:21:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net) Message-ID: <3376C1C1-A02C-494B-85D5-B8F9C17026CE@juniper.net> From: "John G. Scudder" To: "raszuk@cisco.com" In-Reply-To: <4A4681DD.8090207@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:21:28 -0400 References: <20090625183020.9B10F3A69E1@core3.amsl.com> <06AB6078-835E-437B-AB13-F64AD78E4C35@juniper.net> <4A463ADA.1030503@cisco.com> <9AE4DF10-F7F6-4976-A779-929D47478CB3@juniper.net> <4A4681DD.8090207@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2009 16:21:29.0664 (UTC) FILETIME=[A8921C00:01C9F8D5] Cc: idr List , L3VPN Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:52:03 -0000 Robert, I agree that this is a supportable point: On Jun 27, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > WFIW I can easily see the full RFC4684 implementation allowing to drop > incoming filters (with exceptions or not) on inbound But it's at odds with your previous comment: On Jun 27, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > RT-C lite says: > > "Specifically, the PE need only implement the ability to send Route > Target Membership NLRI; it need not have the ability to receive, > store and filter upon such information." > > That directly violates RFC4684 as quoted above. Since the text you objected to pertains exactly to the dropping of incoming filters, I guess you have changed your mind on this point. That is fine with me. On Jun 27, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Would you agree that this draft should be progressed only if we > would be > able to find an implementation that supports it and not full RFC4684 ? I generally don't think protocol specifications should be progressed without implementation, so sure. > And as soon as such implementation would gain full RFC4684 support we > either find another one supporting only RTC-lite or move RTC-lite to > historical ? Seems generally reasonable. Thanks, --John From robert@raszuk.net Mon Jun 29 10:08:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301ED3A6801; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BJUQ1VlFr93n; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4773A67A6; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:08:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,310,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="181355255" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2009 17:08:48 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n5TH8mnC006576; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:08:48 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5TH8m02009127; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:08:48 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:08:47 -0700 Received: from [10.21.119.15] ([10.21.119.15]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:08:47 -0700 Message-ID: <4A48F51B.9040600@raszuk.net> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:08:43 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John G. Scudder" References: <20090625183020.9B10F3A69E1@core3.amsl.com> <06AB6078-835E-437B-AB13-F64AD78E4C35@juniper.net> <4A463ADA.1030503@cisco.com> <9AE4DF10-F7F6-4976-A779-929D47478CB3@juniper.net> <4A4681DD.8090207@cisco.com> <3376C1C1-A02C-494B-85D5-B8F9C17026CE@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <3376C1C1-A02C-494B-85D5-B8F9C17026CE@juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2009 17:08:47.0563 (UTC) FILETIME=[441721B0:01C9F8DC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=robert@raszuk.net; dkim=neutral Cc: "raszuk@cisco.com" , idr List , L3VPN Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rt-constrain-lite-00 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:08:28 -0000 Hi John, > I agree that this is a supportable point: Thank you. But I don't think I have changed my mind. The difference is that an implementation may _allow_ to configure incoming filter, but for example always permit to get the default filter in. If the implementation does not have an ability to even receive a filter as RTC-lite allows (regardless if the sender is aware of it or not) it in my view violates the RFC4684 or for that matter creates an interesting precedence for BGP4 itself. Thx, R. > On Jun 27, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> WFIW I can easily see the full RFC4684 implementation allowing to drop >> incoming filters (with exceptions or not) on inbound > > But it's at odds with your previous comment: > > On Jun 27, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> RT-C lite says: >> >> "Specifically, the PE need only implement the ability to send Route >> Target Membership NLRI; it need not have the ability to receive, >> store and filter upon such information." >> >> That directly violates RFC4684 as quoted above. > > Since the text you objected to pertains exactly to the dropping of > incoming filters, I guess you have changed your mind on this point. > That is fine with me. From rbonica@juniper.net Tue Jun 30 11:36:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E633A6C90 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:36:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u0RAYdNnhx2u for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og122.obsmtp.com (exprod7og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F56C3A6C5B for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob122.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkpbQyO4x5YCiIF84XDXKHuGR7e1C3jK@postini.com; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:37:10 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:58:18 -0700 Received: from [172.28.134.63] (172.28.134.63) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:58:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:58:14 -0400 From: Ron Bonica User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:36:49 -0000 Folks, Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated strong support for the draft. In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to consider adopting this draft as a WG item. Ron Bonica From andy@nosignal.org Tue Jun 30 11:41:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88083A6EAA for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1BgO6yHq-ujo for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chilli.nosignal.org (chilli.nosignal.org [91.194.68.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D533A6EA2 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [78.33.75.33] (helo=[10.1.1.2]) by chilli.nosignal.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MLiF0-0001Kn-8S; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:39:39 +0100 Message-Id: From: Andy Davidson To: Ron Bonica In-Reply-To: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:41:48 +0100 References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:41:36 -0000 On 30 Jun 2009, at 18:58, Ron Bonica wrote: > Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's > general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated > strong support for the draft. > > In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the > WG to > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. Ron, all -- I support the advisory proposal as is. I was present when the straw poll was taken at nanog and agree that the operator community show a huge volume of support for this proposal. Thanks Andy From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Tue Jun 30 11:55:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4701C3A6B5B for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:55:56 -0700 (PDT) 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=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NtFQlODK+P0y for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from synchronicity.convergence.cx (synchronicity.convergence.cx [195.8.70.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6639B3A698D for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=tdcdf1) by synchronicity.convergence.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MLiRR-00082Z-9z for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:52:29 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4A5EEC.5060309@uk.clara.net> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:52:28 +0100 From: David Freedman Organization: Claranet LImited User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:55:56 -0000 [ apologies for duplicates ] I fully support making this a WG item. Please read: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/presentations/Tuesday/Scholl_bgp_adv_light_N46.pdf As it contains material which I (hope) Tom will be including in his -01 Dave. From arnold@nipper.de Tue Jun 30 12:02:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869B53A6EAF for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:02:59 -0700 (PDT) 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=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ugrjMdzJVzJu for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nipper.de (relay.nipper.de [IPv6:2001:1a50:5005:1:2d0:b7ff:fe9a:2088]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7013A6EA2 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nipper.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C418C16E39; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:03:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nipper.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.nipper.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eOoBYUj1aEAN; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:03:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (relay.nipper.de [192.168.144.252]) (Authenticated sender: nipper) by nipper.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE33916D82; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:03:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A4A616E.4020709@nipper.de> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:03:10 +0200 From: Arnold Nipper Organization: nIPper consulting User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@ietf.org References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=9441FC4C Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig950BC479295CEAFEFB0BB944" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:02:59 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig950BC479295CEAFEFB0BB944 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 30.06.2009 19:58 Ron Bonica wrote > Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's > general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated > strong support for the draft. >=20 > In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG t= o > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. >=20 I've been attending Tom's presentation at last NANOG. I fully support the advisory proposal as is. Arnold --=20 Arnold Nipper / nIPper consulting, Sandhausen, Germany email: arnold@nipper.de phone: +49 6224 9259 299 mobile: +49 172 2650958 fax: +49 6224 9259 333 --------------enig950BC479295CEAFEFB0BB944 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKSmFurz6CwpRB/EwRAuuBAJ0bCQkmYFaUhMBQsY7+eFnbNLpx6QCfV4Oc Dlyjo1jNZz6ECuuKzsDFSPE= =+q+r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig950BC479295CEAFEFB0BB944-- From kris.foster@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 12:06:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177BA28C42F for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:06:44 -0700 (PDT) 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=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O2mbzQxXTCs7 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.sjc1.bitgravity.com (mail1.sjc1.bitgravity.com [209.131.97.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782FD3A68FE for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.131.110.195] (helo=netops-195.sfo1.bitgravity.com) by mail1.sjc1.bitgravity.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1MLif1-000Cxl-JF; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:06:31 -0700 Message-Id: From: kris foster To: Ron Bonica In-Reply-To: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:06:31 -0700 References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:06:44 -0000 On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: > Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's > general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated > strong support for the draft. > > In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the > WG to > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. I am in support of this proposal as is -- kris From will@harg.net Tue Jun 30 12:07:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1400428C42D for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:07:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JcrAzsKUpD1n for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from microserf.flarg.net (microserf.flarg.net [195.177.252.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DAA28C201 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 193-47-147-12.11.uknof.org.uk ([193.47.147.12]) by microserf.flarg.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1MLifj-00052j-00 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:07:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4A6263.1030905@harg.net> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:07:15 +0100 From: Will Hargrave User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@ietf.org References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:07:37 -0000 Ron Bonica wrote: > Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's > general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated > strong support for the draft. > > In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. Hi all, As a network and IXP operator I fully support this proposal, which if implemented would be of significant operational utility in the future. Will From tkapela@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 11:59:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8F23A6B83 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:59:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.110, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z0BAMfdvcJQc for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.247]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3853A6EB5 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so135760anc.4 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FYWDgQ6Ruv1hbKVdoTWL6qFlo3k7CnRBONs08zy8//k=; b=dBGjTemWVmQqXZW9XK4VXna5iYvsjsvO6kXd81kB+wiIkEF0NcPUywPA8KMpswBoSr LejZZ7/lhAO+5qoE0SCBECCKm14rhTwobSt6OHlXk8p58QAFE3xntpCgggUl5QYdUw6S Ji9O8PhKu8PtrAdWJuN0nWgU1FBXhqwaZPtyw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=MROBSVVlfILjDwoOmW12dogoD95ZpVhfpveuKOFqflsffjAhoF6lbdsOeRYpjq6+lD rsAdrV+bWrGE1yS0XNOqFqLFttfy+e5WA5axXIrkhrgDhyhoA2GWrBBUoJ+Nj1mGcpDY 7lSAd44uAIhs8hb1qYafPdZvH7KQwPQQ4nias= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.95.11 with SMTP id s11mr11893094anb.112.1246387871672; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:51:10 -0400 Message-ID: <2e9d8ae50906301151u7fc69301wa327ddbc353f5a0d@mail.gmail.com> From: Anton Kapela To: idr@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:12:07 -0000 As Ted Seely posted, "+1." I'd like to quote some other points that I specifically agreed with and found valuable as additions to or considerations for draft-scholl-idr-advisory: --From Robert Raszuk, http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg03707.html, specifically: "* The proposed mechanism should be per SAFI." --From Eric Rosen, http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg03750.html, "I think we have enough tools but we lack of a standardization in the language we use to communicate events. If we can define a draft with these standardization first, then we could revisit the delivery method again IMHO." ...I argue that we can (and should) do this concurrently and asynchronously. I would support a draft regarding this topic. Best, -Tk From asr@latency.net Tue Jun 30 13:21:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD7628C20C for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:21:10 -0700 (PDT) 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=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9jZvF5T21Nof for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from og.latency.net (og.latency.net [64.21.79.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D94C28C111 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by og.latency.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C05F513FB2E; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:21:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:21:30 -0400 From: Adam Rothschild To: Ron Bonica Message-ID: <20090630202130.GA52395@latency.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:21:10 -0000 On 2009-06-30-13:58:14, Ron Bonica wrote: > Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's > general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated > strong support for the draft. > > In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. +1. I support this proposal exactly as written. -a From yakov@juniper.net Tue Jun 30 13:43:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E36428C468 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jGo9svNShRtw for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com (exprod7og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F2428C46A for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob120.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkp40A1IsNdmdsQg2pDCkYav0dEL9Qu5@postini.com; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:43:33 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.375.2; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:38 -0700 Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:38 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp56.jnpr.net ([172.24.60.77]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:38 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:37 -0700 Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n5UKKbL51932 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-ID: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <81123.1246393237.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:37 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2009 20:20:37.0803 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B241FB0:01C9F9C0] Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory as an IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0000 Folks, We received a request to accept draft-scholl-idr-advisory as an IDR WG document. The deadline for comments on this request is July 14, 2009. Yakov ---------------------------------------------------------------- To: idr at ietf.org Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory From: Ron Bonica Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:58:14 -0400 Folks, Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated strong support for the draft. In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to consider adopting this draft as a WG item. Ron Bonica From jmh@joelhalpern.com Tue Jun 30 14:04:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861C53A692C for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:04:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F2iHb-S5LL6y for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C33473A6EA1 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:04:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8BA4305EA for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:04:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-172.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2EAF4305AE for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A4A7DF6.8070500@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:04:54 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@ietf.org References: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory as an IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:04:44 -0000 I believe the working group should accept this draft, and work to get it completed rapidly. Yours, Joel Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-scholl-idr-advisory as an > IDR WG document. The deadline for comments on this request is July 14, > 2009. > > Yakov > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To: idr at ietf.org > Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory > From: Ron Bonica > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:58:14 -0400 > > Folks, > > Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's > general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated > strong support for the draft. > > In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. > > Ron Bonica > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From rcallon@juniper.net Tue Jun 30 16:32:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630F13A6B42 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.312, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EkvECzcwVHU for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF433A6922 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkqgnq97C25ZYux2e3H0TlT5270s0nd2@postini.com; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:33:11 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:30:15 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:30:14 -0400 From: Ross Callon To: "idr@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:26:25 -0400 Thread-Topic: Change in IDR WG chair Thread-Index: Acn4y2F00AoWxox8TRytPr+7z/gU2QBDgFWg Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB1770498244AA670EMBX01WFjnprn_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Idr] Change in IDR WG chair X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:32:50 -0000 --_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB1770498244AA670EMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Rekhter has asked to step down a IDR co-chair. We would like to thank= Yakov for his many years of service to the IETF as IDR co-chair. John Scudder has agreed to take Yakov's place as IDR co-chair (along with S= ue Hares, who will continue as co-chair). Thanks, Ross and Adrian --_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB1770498244AA670EMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yakov Rekhter has asked to step down a IDR co-chair. We would like to thank Yakov for his many years of service to the IETF as IDR co-chair.

 

John Scudder has agreed to take Yakov's place as IDR co-chair (along with Sue Hares, who will continue as co-chair). =

 

Thanks,

Ross and Adrian

--_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB1770498244AA670EMBX01WFjnprn_-- From ras@gerbil.cluepon.net Tue Jun 30 21:14:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9863A67E7 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:14:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.665 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sBzUxwZ6KkFH for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gerbil.cluepon.net (e-gerbil.net [69.31.1.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830813A6D09 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gerbil.cluepon.net (ras@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gerbil.cluepon.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n614ELTv099348; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:14:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras@gerbil.cluepon.net) Received: (from ras@localhost) by gerbil.cluepon.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n614ELiO099347; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:14:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:14:21 -0500 From: Richard A Steenbergen To: Ron Bonica Message-ID: <20090701041421.GH51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:14:38 -0000 On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:58:14PM -0400, Ron Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's > general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated > strong support for the draft. > > In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. I completely support this, and I think the numerous benefits for network operators have already been amply stated. -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) From isacco.fontana@trentinonetwork.it Tue Jun 30 21:40:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30C63A6F0D for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:40:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4tzvMBi4FuC for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from croce.trentinonetwork.it (croce.trentinonetwork.it [77.72.192.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2D33A6B9D for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from croce.trentinonetwork.it (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by croce.trentinonetwork.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAB68EC09F; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:40:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PCifontana (unknown [172.25.225.50]) by croce.trentinonetwork.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F288EC09E; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:40:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: From: "Isacco Fontana" To: "Ron Bonica" , References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:40:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16480 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:40:28 -0000 Support. Isacco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Bonica" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:58 PM Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory > Folks, > > Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's > general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated > strong support for the draft. > > In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. > > Ron Bonica > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >