From rjs@eng.gxn.net Wed Jul 1 01:21:30 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 C07E13A6BFA for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:21:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 OATI5Pq1qf8d for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2001:b98:201:101::10:cafe]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F453A6BA3 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rjs by cappuccino.rob.sh with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MLv2O-0000EV-0b; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:19:28 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:19:28 +0100 From: Rob Shakir To: Ron Bonica Message-ID: <20090701081927.GU12496@cappuccino.rob.sh> 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/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) 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 08:21:30 -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. I'd like to add my support for this draft. In addition, I presented at the last LINX meeting relating to the the problems observed with AS4_PATH earlier in the year, mentioning this draft.The feedback that I got from the operators that I spoke to at the meeting was overwhelmingly positive towards both draft-ietf-idr-optional-transitive and Tom's draft. Kind regards, Rob -- Rob Shakir Network Development Engineer GX Networks/Vialtus Solutions ddi: +44208 587 6077 mob: +44797 155 4098 pgp: 0xc07e6deb nic-hdl: RJS-RIPE This email is subject to: http//www.vialtus.com/disclaimer.html From paul@jakma.org Wed Jul 1 01:59:37 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 74FE728C375 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:59:37 -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 lAEx-3lO8pbu for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:59:36 -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 5DC1B3A6BFA for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:59:36 -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 n618xZ86027107 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:59:49 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:59:35 +0100 (BST) From: Paul Jakma To: Yakov Rekhter In-Reply-To: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> Message-ID: References: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Mail-Copies-To: paul@jakma.org X-NSA: al aqsar fluffy jihad cute musharef kittens jet-A1 ear avgas wax ammonium bad qran dog inshallah allah al-akbar martyr iraq hammas hisballah rabin ayatollah korea revolt pelvix mustard gas x-ray british airways washington peroxide cool MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.1.1 (hibernia.jakma.org [212.17.55.49]); Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:59:49 +0100 (IST) Cc: idr@ietf.org 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:59:37 -0000 On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, 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. Please adopt. regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: The road to Hades is easy to travel. -- Bion From crimson@sidehack.sat.gweep.net Tue Jun 30 14:14:17 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 250453A6869 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:14:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 NPNa9O+ScnRa for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sidehack.sat.gweep.net (sidehack.sat.gweep.net [204.145.148.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C9CF43A6CD5 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11897 invoked by uid 524); 30 Jun 2009 21:14:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:14:12 -0400 From: Joe Provo To: idr@ietf.org Message-ID: <20090630211411.GA10556@gweep.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-PGP-Key: http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt X-Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." Organization: RSUC: NT? No Thanks! X-Do-Not-Email-Here: zero@spammers.can-bite-me.com Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:37:23 -0000 On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 07:41:48PM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote: > > 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. As stated last go-round, yes yes and yes. The sticky, et al ideas make for goo -01 update fodder, but the concept is sound and as long as it is a) negotiated and b) any message-type lists have accomodations for free-text* then it will be strongly supported by the operator community at large. Cheers, Joe * most network operators are humble enough to realize we can't possibly foresee all conditions needed in human interprovider signalling -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE From uttaro@att.com Wed Jul 1 05:31:54 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 A004B28C7BA for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:31:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 UoEw-NxZOQsj for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F9C28C94B for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:12:45 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: uttaro@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1246450373!8038550!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 12665 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2009 12:12:54 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-11.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Jul 2009 12:12:54 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n61CCrka023246 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:12:53 -0400 Received: from misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [144.155.43.107]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n61CCnQw023220 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:12:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:12:49 -0400 Message-ID: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B98B@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4A4A7DF6.8070500@joelhalpern.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory as an IDR WG document Thread-Index: Acn5xoNjgjMnzwfwRBSi/XZ//sbSggAfrX5Q References: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> <4A4A7DF6.8070500@joelhalpern.com> From: "UTTARO, JAMES, ATTLABS" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:31:54 -0000 Support=20 James Uttaro=20 -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:05 PM To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory as an IDR WG document I believe the working group should accept this draft, and work to get it completed rapidly. Yours, Joel Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Folks, >=20 > 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. >=20 > Yakov > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To: idr at ietf.org=20 > Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory=20 > From: Ron Bonica =20 > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:58:14 -0400=20 >=20 > Folks, >=20 > 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 to > consider adopting this draft as a WG item. >=20 > Ron Bonica >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >=20 _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From deleskie@gmail.com Wed Jul 1 07:01:44 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 CFCA828C52E for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 07:01:44 -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 GbOSp8gu9tqM for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 07:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f225.google.com (mail-bw0-f225.google.com [209.85.218.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D912C28C539 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 07:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz25 with SMTP id 25so535977bwz.37 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:01:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pSuegzc+Xp6/3FomSeTPjWtmeHtQwIC1j1PWD5qeUyA=; b=u4FNXyzmRWByQ6E3+ErZyyv858KUzwHiyum6KRSQoeatwCobcf5RyVAXnugOCBl56E SugKMJ3HdE+ifhlcaeC/9x++o/ftn7OC7XQKiERJRX3Gvnb+FfvfX+jm0EG2162G/M8U Qm+FtUmohe1bFSRE1kT6dYjZqgPnAwbvgcszk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oigoUoWzdR8gz+0UnC09XmCFV47j3aOvK2WF8xA4JHYiVQ+zGa3ygpHxd32yb4UB7S RmL69QTJuKnS6iCZBCMsWawTvw840WwQYILI14fw8sxITvoWaTIvi1utt+1Nu58IGA0G rtl86O8HawEvDQRjdiHRWv5/w/EKUjmLQXiJw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.101.13 with SMTP id a13mr9606674bko.89.1246456876600; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:01:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B98B@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> References: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> <4A4A7DF6.8070500@joelhalpern.com> <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B98B@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:01:16 -0300 Message-ID: From: jim deleskie To: "UTTARO, JAMES, ATTLABS" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idr@ietf.org, "Joel M. Halpern" 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:01:44 -0000 Support. From christopher.morrow@gmail.com Wed Jul 1 07:57:52 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 8DE1428C52F for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 07:57:52 -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 wWYwcjRb083k for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 07:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A786A3A69B7 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 07:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxe12 with SMTP id 12so1478200yxe.29 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LyxtZnfR+uDJ3vJC+ucbId37s7MntQSwO3q7hIbc1Zs=; b=On9FYGcBJrSBNtw/1lov6Qa/vPo2o6L/66mSyR1Womhw5mCBOk2o+FWbD1ZU0a4w8k iifzqWDjuOIoHky0qioo+fcHBjLpPVa+fdgoHJT3H126sx774HgEppeQP3/WshlzmOTB s7MoXYIr9VUyht/QBx8x6RMHbOUAl7+RH85OM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=fTt2JZQWEZYGNObFcGQ0IoKqeRKeT+yvmXxVyHRrYNYLDmGcls5A/VqraUVi0VzzxW g3AqKXCJe9BhFgtq+uXa9ktlMxe7zlCXnbgEY2bCntdMjmG1C4PDUOsNquHv2gSZs5PC PlMqZrA9aUeUbWBa/GIGGNgZmxE50RLZ8t1gI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.229.12 with SMTP id b12mr13614094anh.26.1246460251328; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090630211411.GA10556@gweep.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <20090630211411.GA10556@gweep.net> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:57:31 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3196fb51cd4f00d0 Message-ID: <75cb24520907010757j5d0bfcc8w7cda4e479940dd9e@mail.gmail.com> From: Christopher Morrow To: idr@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 14:57:52 -0000 On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 07:41:48PM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote: >> >> 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. > > As stated last go-round, yes yes and yes. The sticky, et al ideas > make for goo -01 update fodder, but the concept is sound and as > long as it is a) negotiated and b) any message-type lists have +1 for a) the overall concept would be helpful. -Chris > accomodations for free-text* then it will be strongly supported > by the operator community at large. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > * most network operators are humble enough to realize we can't > =A0possibly foresee all conditions needed in human interprovider > =A0signalling > > > -- > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From cooper@GBLX.net Wed Jul 1 08:02:35 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 74DDD28C522 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:02:35 -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 zGP1Ph19HfWB for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.phx.gblx.net (smtp1.phx.gblx.net [64.208.25.103]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0432628C5B8 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp1.phx.gblx.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id n61F0VI11495; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 15:00:31 GMT Received: from shell1.phx.gblx.net(64.208.25.102) via SMTP by smtp1.phx.gblx.net, id smtpdAAAT2aqCw; Wed Jul 1 15:00:31 2009 Received: (from dcooper@localhost) by shell1.phx.gblx.net (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.9.3) id n61F0UM00824; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 15:00:30 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.phx.gblx.net: dcooper set sender to cooper@GBLX.net using -f Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 15:00:30 +0000 From: Dave Cooper To: Yakov Rekhter Message-ID: <20090701150030.GA762@gblx.net> References: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> Organization: Global Crossing, Ltd. IP Engineering User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Cc: idr@ietf.org 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:02:35 -0000 please adopt On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:20:37PM -0700, 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 -- Dave Cooper Global Crossing, Ltd. (602) 744-3473 (voip) (916) 316-9218 (mobile) dcooper@GBLX.net From dmm@1-4-5.net Wed Jul 1 08:16:51 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 9F7EB3A6961 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.487 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, 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 lbPepTdwB5xa for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m106.maoz.com (m106.maoz.com [205.167.76.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2DA3A6912 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n61FGlv9002981 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:16:47 -0700 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n61FGl2I002980 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:16:47 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:16:47 -0700 From: David Meyer To: idr@ietf.org Message-ID: <20090701151647.GA2938@1-4-5.net> References: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> <20090701150030.GA762@gblx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090701150030.GA762@gblx.net> X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-gpg-fingerprint: 2409 8B50 B389 A307 BA5C 2A16 3918 03D6 A099 D8A7 X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go. John Lennon" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:16:51 -0000 --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > 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. I'm in favor of accepting this as a WG document. Dave =09 --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpLfd8ACgkQORgD1qCZ2KcaXgCggIyR63lyclaE+tL2CvkirH+K qaYAoIrUfct51eCKL1Xwva6k5nYNgmxS =GpPn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm-- From mikeb@gblx.net Wed Jul 1 10:34:09 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 C303D28C105 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:34:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.369 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 zSwyz+j+-1Vk for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.disturbed.org (host-216-9-185-208.orbitelcom.com [216.9.185.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CAE3A69F7 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.disturbed.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pinky.disturbed.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n61HXKow030448; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:33:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mikeb@gblx.net) Received: (from mikeb@localhost) by pinky.disturbed.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n61HXG3Z030447; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:33:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mikeb@gblx.net) X-Authentication-Warning: pinky.disturbed.org: mikeb set sender to mikeb@gblx.net using -f Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:33:15 -0700 From: Mike Benjamin To: Yakov Rekhter Message-ID: <20090701173315.GA30330@gblx.net> References: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: idr@ietf.org 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:34:09 -0000 Support its acceptance. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:20:37PM -0700, 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 -- Mike Benjamin - +1-602-744-3403 mikeb@gblx.net - Development Engineering Global Crossing - Phoenix, USA From igor@gashinsky.net Wed Jul 1 13:25:48 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 BD3EC3A6872 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.283 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.317, 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 qsWvq-Plm7qc for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from moonbase.nullrouteit.net (moonbase.nullrouteit.net [216.254.64.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980943A6838 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4615 invoked by uid 1000); 1 Jul 2009 20:22:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Jul 2009 20:22:09 -0000 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:22:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Igor Gashinsky X-X-Sender: igor@moonbase.nullrouteit.net To: "UTTARO, JAMES, ATTLABS" In-Reply-To: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B98B@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> Message-ID: References: <200906302020.n5UKKbL51932@magenta.juniper.net> <4A4A7DF6.8070500@joelhalpern.com> <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B98B@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: idr@ietf.org, "Joel M. Halpern" 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:25:48 -0000 :: 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. Please adopt. Thanks, -igor From shares@ghs.com Wed Jul 1 09:36:35 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 C336C3A69FC for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:36:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 B1k0RnnPRKGZ for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eta.ghs.com (eta.ghs.com [63.102.70.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2013A67F6 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brio.ghs.com (brio.ghs.com [192.168.64.222]) by eta.ghs.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n61GKAY5010302; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from express.ghs.com (express.ghs.com [192.168.64.220]) by brio.ghs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D351028154; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from express.ghs.com ([192.168.64.220]) by express.ghs.com ([192.168.64.220]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:20:04 -0700 From: Sue Hares To: "idr@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:20:00 -0700 Thread-Topic: Yakov's stepping down Thread-Index: Acn6Z8hshCj53fC1SyypFQzDQ1C/iA== 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_F7427BB02D636842840FE0DAC9F73A3D09D91B1442expressghscom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:26:53 -0700 Cc: Yakov Rekhter Subject: [Idr] Yakov's stepping down 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 16:36:35 -0000 --_000_F7427BB02D636842840FE0DAC9F73A3D09D91B1442expressghscom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I want to thank Yakov Rekhter for many years of leadership for IDR. Yakov has been a wonderful mentor to me and to many others. I look forward to many fine years of work with John Scudder. His wisdom has= always brought new insights to my understanding of BGP - and lots of other= routing protocols. Sue Hares --_000_F7427BB02D636842840FE0DAC9F73A3D09D91B1442expressghscom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I want to thank Yakov Rekhter for many years of leader= ship for IDR.

Yakov has been a wonderful mentor to me and to many ot= hers.


I look forward to many fine years of work with John Scudder. His wisdom has always brought new insights to my understanding of BGP – and lots of = other routing protocols.

 

 

Sue Hares

--_000_F7427BB02D636842840FE0DAC9F73A3D09D91B1442expressghscom_-- From skh@ndzh.com Wed Jul 1 11:19:43 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 7598E3A682E for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:19:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.619 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 ranPDRz2UfCT for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (63-208-161-197.digitalrealm.net [63.208.161.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6FAF3A67FC for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fargo (unverified [69.198.118.194]) by hickoryhill-consulting.com (SurgeMail 3.9h) with ESMTP id 436460-1945496 for multiple; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:19:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Susan Hares" To: Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:19:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C9FA56.F2965640" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:26:53 -0700 Cc: yakov@juniper.net Subject: [Idr] Thank you Yakov! 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 18:26:18 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C9FA56.F2965640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I want to thank Yakov Rekhter for many years of leadership for IDR. = Yakov has been a wonderful mentor to me and to many others. I shall = miss his humor, wisdom and kindness.=20 Please welcome John Scudder as co-chair.=20 =20 Sue Hares ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C9FA56.F2965640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I want=20 to thank Yakov Rekhter for many years of leadership for IDR.  = Yakov has been a wonderful mentor to me and to = many=20 others.  I shall miss his humor, wisdom and kindness.


Please welcome John Scudder as co-chair.

 

Sue=20 Hares

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C9FA56.F2965640-- From curtis@occnc.com Wed Jul 1 20:50:57 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 ED7C43A6BC7 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:50:57 -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 jYL2jQwKLfKb for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C226F3A68C5 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n623mIJk032659; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:48:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: Ron Bonica From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:58:14 EDT." <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:48:18 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:50:58 -0000 In message <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> Ron Bonica writes: > > 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 Ron, No objections, just a few questions. Has NOC to NOC communication really degraded to the point where we need to send messages through the BGP peering to reach someone with a clue on the other side? Didn't NOCs used to exchange PGP keys a long while back and prioritize PGP signed email from peers? Have we forgotten how to do that or is there some reason that it is no longer workable? [perhaps clueless peers who can't get PGP into outlook? I doubt its because we're paralyzed over the PGP vs. S/MIME dilema.] The peering has an IP address. What about putting these IP addresses in the email to the peer to identify where the problem is rather than put the message in the session itself? Would it be wise to explicitly limit the scope of these messages to the immediate peer and its logging so that the global internet isn't bloated with advisory messages that are only of interest to a pair of providers somewhere? I didn't see where that limit was recommended. If this really is needed, its a sad commentary on the operator community. But if so, go for it. Curtis From christopher.morrow@gmail.com Wed Jul 1 21:15:48 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 3CB563A6971 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:15:48 -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 kt5kStmR-l2o for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.240]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053E23A6C86 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so557425anc.4 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:16:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CWT6uCiMABFLvYiR8Le14q720H8DfZe7IJIfQgeuqrI=; b=D4unV9vV7Wo4iYVM45pQ/Jh1EWQIUWnRF0qnZq2Z0wwn9ISpe22WlJ51dwdJDtUb5y JYqBfkcCPlv3Xd+fWMA+DlIC2OcSpT19k/46EbLvsBd3XLWF6HC25SCEKKIi3X3RYR/5 JqcMGNJxtdHxovBMjeqizWO4uhJu8gBqxU15o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=C1v5sblTnfWmi0TS2vuMcXsKWuw8vhrmzv+ciqQVjc74Dd1EzgxO+6UQEQr8HgqrT9 ey58lk9UxE6RIQv35Txj4VNtYk+Vv6T2Llkr6fT2DQGnWNYLL9fpLYmbLwZVw0MSpTgJ w3rrbzstLe23+m04+ZAcTI00wXCmYJvmCSYd4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.143.17 with SMTP id q17mr14725153and.114.1246508165473; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:16:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 00:16:05 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 874ec07a9adb8926 Message-ID: <75cb24520907012116o48804c6ald7021e159041a5da@mail.gmail.com> From: Christopher Morrow To: curtis@occnc.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:15:48 -0000 On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> > Ron Bonica writes: >> >> 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. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = Ron Bonica > > > Ron, > > No objections, just a few questions. > > Has NOC to NOC communication really degraded to the point where we > need to send messages through the BGP peering to reach someone with a > clue on the other side? =A0Didn't NOCs used to exchange PGP keys a long I think that, and was poked in the eye by a former collegue about this, this is an attempt to solve a 'social' problem with technology. This isn't exactly right, because if this were implemented well it feeds into the NOC ticketing/alerting system in a manner that lets the NOC auto-ignore a flapped session if the note came across prior to the flap. Implemented well means from the router-vendor/user up to the OSS that feeds alerts/alarms/triggers to the 'NOC'. At larger ISP/NSP/Operators the current state is that there are 'lots of customers' and basically no linkage between 'customer' (or 'peer' in this context) and the 'NOC'. Getting through the phone-queue/hell to someone who'd be able to tell the 'NOC' that "hey, customer X's session is going to bounce ... yea, 2 hrs ago:(" isn't realistic. 'used to' share PGP keys, I've not seen anyone at a large 'ISP' use PGP (hell most of their parent companies forbid it's use on corporate equipment) in a very long time. For anything going to the 'NOC' there's a standard method to get a ticket created/started, only infrequently would email actually work out, and almost never would PGP actually be involved in that process. > while back and prioritize PGP signed email from peers? =A0Have we > forgotten how to do that or is there some reason that it is no longer it's not about forgetting, it's about email stopped being useful for 'noc@' at any large ISP, at least email from 'public' places. > workable? =A0[perhaps clueless peers who can't get PGP into outlook? =A0I > doubt its because we're paralyzed over the PGP vs. S/MIME dilema.] Nope, it's because email's not used and you can't rely on email in a timely fashion or reaching the 'right' place in the remote org. You CAN say that in X period of time after message-via-bgp arrives on routers you can automate log-scraping and alert de-priotitization in your netcool-like system. > The peering has an IP address. =A0What about putting these IP addresses > in the email to the peer to identify where the problem is rather than > put the message in the session itself? Keep in mind that email is also not timely, If I need to shutdown a peer 'now' and I don't want/need help I'd rather trigger a message/log on their side that makes the event just not show up on their OSS/Alarm system. I'd also note that Tom does cover almost all of these reasons in his summary/abstract... > > Would it be wise to explicitly limit the scope of these messages to > the immediate peer and its logging so that the global internet isn't yes... though I thought Tom's idea was 'capability' which is a peer-to-peer negotiated element, not something sent along beyond the immediate peer, correct? > bloated with advisory messages that are only of interest to a pair of > providers somewhere? =A0I didn't see where that limit was recommended. > > If this really is needed, its a sad commentary on the operator > community. =A0But if so, go for it. thanks for your vote? I actually thought it was a GOOD sign for operators, we've grown up and decided that some technologies could help us to make things better/faster/smoother for all parties. -Chris > Curtis > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From christopher.morrow@gmail.com Wed Jul 1 21:18:19 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 C02A228C119 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:18:19 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 zXFb6PCzi2Qm for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9570C3A6CAE for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxe12 with SMTP id 12so2230255yxe.29 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:18:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Pqm2c2DjLGWuBrldmbBaUw6mY5eFzpiuNJIoutmQaBM=; b=P3r/MJV2Zyuc13S3xPunK3fsq/L1Ph+nX8rwyYTm2+mnYdOfd3TDRBWJxDLjr6rphs GOL6slR3nWMi66UJs1RGH5QmXnTx6hF9dgnbtQ1eEgzm7KvLf61kQjOeTo3z+nVcj0cJ OvYPjlTybOU8XNvBDFgvRj1LX5iM5vomVJEVE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=nIpPgpZjnFod9Z1UewYeKC4V8ALbQ86ccOtHEHJsWyRP8nQ3PirsoaoBAtmecjJvme k+cBH2Gvi7MUsCrwgKchAmFl9eHGXc/Z16LMsG0unJy6w1q0XnhFReay+e27wFA1QUix B0SvrcckdWCvV6exP/V8m8pSL0/JwfKZiB8k0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.42.14 with SMTP id p14mr14642965anp.199.1246508318788; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:18:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <75cb24520907012116o48804c6ald7021e159041a5da@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> <75cb24520907012116o48804c6ald7021e159041a5da@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 00:18:38 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: b00a20639ca1193e Message-ID: <75cb24520907012118u437ff651g2618408763af5df4@mail.gmail.com> From: Christopher Morrow To: curtis@occnc.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:18:19 -0000 On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrot= e: >> >> In message <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> >> Ron Bonica writes: >>> >>> 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 t= o >>> consider adopting this draft as a WG item. >>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= Ron Bonica >> >> >> Ron, >> >> No objections, just a few questions. >> >> Has NOC to NOC communication really degraded to the point where we >> need to send messages through the BGP peering to reach someone with a >> clue on the other side? =A0Didn't NOCs used to exchange PGP keys a long > > I think that, and was poked in the eye by a former collegue about > this, this is an attempt to solve a 'social' problem with technology. > This isn't exactly right, because if this were =A0implemented well it > feeds into the NOC ticketing/alerting system in a manner that lets the > NOC auto-ignore a flapped session if the note came across prior to the > flap. Implemented well means from the router-vendor/user up to the OSS > that feeds alerts/alarms/triggers to the 'NOC'. > > At larger ISP/NSP/Operators the current state is that there are 'lots > of customers' and basically no linkage between 'customer' (or 'peer' > in this context) and the 'NOC'. Getting through the phone-queue/hell > to someone who'd be able to tell the 'NOC' that "hey, customer X's > session is going to bounce ... yea, 2 hrs ago:(" isn't realistic. > > 'used to' share PGP keys, I've not seen anyone at a large 'ISP' use I'd note that when you left ANS/UUNET there was very likely almost no one using PGP for email communications between peers (aside from personal emails)... certainly the NOC ticketting system at UUNET didn't understand PGP email, nor prioritizing that over other email it received. -Chris > PGP (hell most of their parent companies forbid it's use on corporate > equipment) in a very long time. For anything going to the 'NOC' > there's a standard method to get a ticket created/started, only > infrequently would email actually work out, and almost never would PGP > actually be involved in that process. > >> while back and prioritize PGP signed email from peers? =A0Have we >> forgotten how to do that or is there some reason that it is no longer > > it's not about forgetting, it's about email stopped being useful for > 'noc@' at any large ISP, at least =A0email from 'public' places. > >> workable? =A0[perhaps clueless peers who can't get PGP into outlook? =A0= I >> doubt its because we're paralyzed over the PGP vs. S/MIME dilema.] > > Nope, it's because email's not used and you can't rely on email in a > timely fashion or reaching the 'right' place in the remote org. You > CAN say that in X period of time after message-via-bgp arrives on > routers you can automate log-scraping and alert de-priotitization in > your netcool-like system. > >> The peering has an IP address. =A0What about putting these IP addresses >> in the email to the peer to identify where the problem is rather than >> put the message in the session itself? > > Keep in mind that email is also not timely, If I need to shutdown a > peer 'now' and I don't want/need help I'd rather trigger a message/log > on their side that makes the event just not show up on their OSS/Alarm > system. > > I'd also note that Tom does cover almost all of these reasons in his > summary/abstract... > >> >> Would it be wise to explicitly limit the scope of these messages to >> the immediate peer and its logging so that the global internet isn't > > yes... though I thought Tom's idea was 'capability' which is a > peer-to-peer negotiated element, not something sent along beyond the > immediate peer, correct? > >> bloated with advisory messages that are only of interest to a pair of >> providers somewhere? =A0I didn't see where that limit was recommended. >> >> If this really is needed, its a sad commentary on the operator >> community. =A0But if so, go for it. > > thanks for your vote? I actually thought it was a GOOD sign for > operators, we've grown up and decided that some technologies could > help us to make things better/faster/smoother for all parties. > > -Chris > >> Curtis >> _______________________________________________ >> Idr mailing list >> Idr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >> > From crimson@sidehack.sat.gweep.net Thu Jul 2 03:31:22 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 DDA8A3A69EA for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 er9w6v9OkJf7 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sidehack.sat.gweep.net (sidehack.sat.gweep.net [204.145.148.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C3C4128C1B7 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 76023 invoked by uid 524); 2 Jul 2009 10:31:43 -0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:31:43 -0400 From: Joe Provo To: Curtis Villamizar Message-ID: <20090702103143.GA15217@gweep.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-PGP-Key: http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt X-Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." Organization: http://spammers.can-bite-me.com/ X-Do-Not-Email-Here: junky@place.rsuc.gweep.net Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:31:22 -0000 On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 11:48:18PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> > Ron Bonica writes: > > > > 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. [snip] > > Ron, > > No objections, just a few questions. > > Has NOC to NOC communication really degraded to the point where we > need to send messages through the BGP peering to reach someone with a > clue on the other side? Yes. Large companies apply factory-management to ops centers and just as with call centers this drives initiative and care out of the front lines, in the interest of ticket closure and call stats. See also, official communication channels, and game of telephone when trying to send reasonable noticies around simple things like prefix filters, max-pfx adjutsments, etc. This smells like a stelar customer-facing tool as well, to standardize some message-passing WRT needing prefix filters adjusted, etc. To look at the first item [sorry, first cuppa], today there are a mishmosh of ascii mail, word docs[ugh], web forms, IRR-based austomation and 'customer portals' that add friction to the provisioning process. Is it no wonder that we-collectively have a problem filtering customers when a customer has to use a pile of different methods? I would see this capability being used at all AS-external edges (peer, customer, and provider) and provide utility across each path. > Didn't NOCs used to exchange PGP keys a long > while back and prioritize PGP signed email from peers? [snip] Never in my ~13 years of doing a nontrivial amount of peering & ISP operations. > The peering has an IP address. What about putting these IP addresses > in the email to the peer to identify where the problem is rather than > put the message in the session itself? This is already done, and is operationally insufficeint and inefficient. Piggybacking messages on a known, good session gives a strong vouch for the veracity of any assertions as well; email or relayed phone messages burn staff time of usually senior people to ferret out if that a human contact change, prefix growth, etc is true. > Would it be wise to explicitly limit the scope of these messages to > the immediate peer and its logging so that the global internet isn't > bloated with advisory messages that are only of interest to a pair of > providers somewhere? I didn't see where that limit was recommended. Negotiated compatibility implies a limit to neighbors, but I would imagine this to be clarified as non-transitive in the *-01. > If this really is needed, its a sad commentary on the operator > community. But if so, go for it. I think you mispelled "commoditization of Internet service". Existing methods fail to DTRT at scale, therefore seeking a new tool on the workbench is IMO a Good Thing. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE From james.gill@verizonbusiness.com Thu Jul 2 06:59:38 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 4D7883A6893 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:59:38 -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 iae2CurGa5Od for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ashesmtp01.verizonbusiness.com (ashesmtp01.verizonbusiness.com [198.4.8.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3203A6D30 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omzismtp03.vzbi.com ([165.122.46.170]) by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KM50068XQVC0500@firewall.verizonbusiness.com> for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from omzismtp03.vzbi.com ([127.0.0.1]) by omzismtp03.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KM500K4QQVC3700@omzismtp03.vzbi.com> for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ASHSRV142.mcilink.com ([153.39.68.168]) by omzismtp03.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KM500K01QVC3I00@omzismtp03.vzbi.com> for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ASHEVS017.vzbi.com ([153.39.71.100]) by ASHSRV142.mcilink.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:36 +0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:35 +0000 Message-id: <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> In-reply-to: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-topic: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory Thread-index: Acn5sdEqjvWsNitcRYum0kCvBJ9MtABa1zXA References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> From: "Gill, James E (gill)" To: idr@ietf.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 13:59:36.0627 (UTC) FILETIME=[55A50030:01C9FB1D] 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:59:38 -0000 Hello folks, I support adopting this as a WG item. However, and I'm sure we will get into this as the WG proceeds, I think there are fundamental elements of this which are bad. Notably, I don't think that bloating BGP with operator-to-operator messages is a good move to maintain a stable, secure (fwiw) protocol. I agree that the problem of op-2-op communication needs more attention, and I hope with this starting point the WG can forge a reasonable solution that doesn't increase the fragility and risk of operating an Internetwork. --gill -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM To: idr@ietf.org 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 From raszuk@cisco.com Thu Jul 2 08:06:24 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 D52533A6DAF for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.314 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.314 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.285, 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 ivoiiH6j3W0u for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:23 -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 BFE553A6DA1 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,334,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="336319917" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2009 15:06:46 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n62F6kfl005320; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:46 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n62F6kZm015622; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:06:46 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); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:46 -0700 Received: from [10.21.65.117] ([10.21.65.117]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:45 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:06:42 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Gill, James E (gill)" References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> In-Reply-To: <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 15:06:45.0903 (UTC) FILETIME=[B747B9F0:01C9FB26] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3489; t=1246547206; x=1247411206; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=1jXmp0mJAovNI2g4/E7fMZ934ZyR3XQTkN3FjKXXLBc=; b=PYwRYhAJj2dFq0Ei+KG1jqCCArGnA1mQr4xiGs2WQYNjj2EnYIYnqZKVhQ dHl8iM5o/lSC8GWfsd2awbuLQToacYtnvsTIjYeT/Rd2DNfkzmQhYgD+Din2 JI/3tl1qZI; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:06:24 -0000 Hi Jim, I very much share your point of view. I think the current version of the draft may be a good starting point for the discussion as apparently there is operator's community requirement for improvement in the space of inter-NOC communication. I think automation is great and if we can automate anything I am always in support. If this regardless of comments already made in the other thread is to happen in BGP so be it. Would we have a way to keep this new communication channel to BGP related messages - perhaps no. Example: If EBGP peers agree to run BFD would we use the same new BGP msg type channel to pass BFD related warnings too ? But in spite of couple of people's immediate voting to accept it "as is" or "exactly as written" which interestingly enough Ron's email did not even contained in the question I would like to state that "as is" or "exactly as written" may be a bit too strong of requirement. Besides which version of the draft are we talking of "as is" ? Those in version -00 or those on Nanog slides including "good ideas" from pages 11 & 12 ? http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/presentations/Tuesday/Scholl_bgp_adv_light_N46.pdf Example: Concept of sticky messages •An idea where you can transmit an advisory message to “stick” in the BGP neighbor state. This way, upon viewing “show bgp nei x.x.x.x”, you can see the latest sticky message transmitted by the peer. •Would not be sent to the log. Question: How can something with random length (without max limit) be part of cli show command and yet still make this show command nicely readable and parsable by scripts ? So I would suggest both for sticky msg and syslog msg to have max length defined. Also I think we should enforce the free form language to be ASCII English only. /* And yes I can already see a request coming for a spell checker to be added to router's OS ... After all it is in the cell phone why not in the router :-) */ Cheers, R. > Hello folks, > > I support adopting this as a WG item. > > However, and I'm sure we will get into this as the WG proceeds, I think > there are fundamental elements of this which are bad. Notably, I don't > think that bloating BGP with operator-to-operator messages is a good > move to maintain a stable, secure (fwiw) protocol. > > I agree that the problem of op-2-op communication needs more attention, > and I hope with this starting point the WG can forge a reasonable > solution that doesn't increase the fragility and risk of operating an > Internetwork. > > --gill > > -----Original Message----- > From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ron Bonica > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM > To: idr@ietf.org > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From jayb@zoe.braeburn.org Thu Jul 2 08:06:14 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 A08953A6B8D for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:14 -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 yLYDDHeCEAdI for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CEB73A6DBE for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: jayb@zoe.braeburn.org X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1246547192!30201673!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 30295 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2009 15:06:33 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-8.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jul 2009 15:06:33 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n62F6VXZ014927 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:06:32 -0400 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n62F6SQ3014875 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:06:28 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n62F6Sb9022579 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:06:28 -0400 Received: from oz.mt.att.com (oz.mt.att.com [135.16.165.23]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n62F6NNm022411 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:06:23 -0400 Received: by oz.mt.att.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id A23E62BF2C; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:06:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.1 (via feedmail 8 I); VM 7.18 under Emacs 21.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19020.52460.488163.423329@oz.mt.att.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:06:20 -0400 From: Jay Borkenhagen To: idr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> X-GPG-Fingerprint: DDDB 542E D988 94D0 82D3 D198 7DED 6648 2308 D3C0 Sender: jayb@zoe.braeburn.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jay Borkenhagen List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:19:23 -0000 Curtis Villamizar writes: > No objections, just a few questions. > > Has NOC to NOC communication really degraded to the point where we > need to send messages through the BGP peering to reach someone with > a clue on the other side? [...] Hi Curtis, The advisory capability is meant to supplement other NOC to NOC communications. Here are a couple key (IMHO) passages from the draft: While [email/phone] have been used for many years, it can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP- related event in the network with a notice that was transmitted in email. and: This capability can speed up operator reaction and resolution time by providing a direct correlation between a BGP event and the root cause. In my day job I'm often asked to look through available information including router syslogs to help figure out what had happened in the network. I'm not normally a recipient of NOC to NOC emails, so it would be a nice help to me to find a log message like "we're about to begin the maintenance we notified noc@foo.com of on under our ticket ", or "the session flap we just experienced was caused by ". In my view, it's a way to put operationally useful information in another of the places someone might be looking. Thanks. Jay B. PS: I support adopting the draft as a WG item. -- Jay Borkenhagen jayb@braeburn.org From christopher.morrow@gmail.com Thu Jul 2 08:20:21 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 E9F813A6DB4 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:20:21 -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 5ZJ-lTmG-nEq for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50543A6B8D for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxe12 with SMTP id 12so2714588yxe.29 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:20:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p4xB4ZiiLqkzwv87ZU4VGVR26wY6XpvIGbEvnDkvUUE=; b=noGpo5bYpyULKd7M65md+uK12C3zN82sih5mKckfInvRtVhvAWgdSXXING+H47VKka E4ucuFX7Dh4beIxUb/bHjE3lWqj8udotggu2SYkauLmDy4xtvZ+ri1BH7k7/qEbvxgY+ +kUs9nUuuUKRe7FvAAne5CJDmg4/DffCuErxs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=cMSDnbx9UOcKeiuLi6y2XwOV9Tb7wHR3N27sB3Jfl3B3Q83m7/X0IYSYqFnwZL1WBH qm3fnhgvWHe/eWIRzgUhLuxVsoqnh4MvjI/ufGI+uqszGcNJ+fFqLGzBnsVkJsxSL/Gp cygckET/z3OIsSoINVynNkMwJwPlm8hxjI9Xw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.92.2 with SMTP id p2mr297284anb.7.1246548041525; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:20:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:20:41 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 21a399a543bfba5e Message-ID: <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> From: Christopher Morrow To: raszuk@cisco.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:20:22 -0000 On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Jim, (James, normally) > Besides which version of the draft are we talking of "as is" ? Those in > version -00 or those on Nanog slides including "good ideas" from pages 11= & > 12 ? > > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/presentations/Tuesday/Scholl_bgp_ad= v_light_N46.pdf > > Example: > > Concept of sticky messages > =95An idea where you can transmit an advisory message to =93stick=94 in t= he BGP > neighbor state. This way, upon viewing =93show bgp nei x.x.x.x=94, you ca= n see > the latest sticky message transmitted by the peer. > =95Would not be sent to the log. > > Question: How can something with random length (without max limit) be par= t > of cli show command and yet still make this show command nicely readable = and > parsable by scripts ? > > So I would suggest both for sticky msg and syslog msg to have max length > defined. > > Also I think we should enforce the free form language to be ASCII English > only. > > /* And yes I can already see a request coming for a spell checker to be > added to router's OS ... After all it is in the cell phone why not in the > router :-) */ and format string checking and.... That's all well past the 'protocol now carries this new message' though, which I think is IDR's purview, yes? Every vendor (Doing bgp) will then have figure out how to shoehorn this into their implementation. First though: 1) is IDR willing to accept the work 2) is this something that the routing protocol should be used for? 3) are the details of the protocol change spec proper/valid/good? I share the 'overloading bgp yet again is a bad plan' but also 'getting ops to run yet another thing on their hardware and arranging that to work properly amongst their peers' is not trivial. (so this goes into bgp, please keep it very simple, small payload + limited ascii-set) -Chris > Cheers, > R. > >> Hello folks, >> >> I support adopting this as a WG item. >> >> However, and I'm sure we will get into this as the WG proceeds, I think >> there are fundamental elements of this which are bad. =A0Notably, I don'= t >> think that bloating BGP with operator-to-operator messages is a good >> move to maintain a stable, secure (fwiw) protocol. >> >> I agree that the problem of op-2-op communication needs more attention, >> and I hope with this starting point the WG can forge a reasonable >> solution that doesn't increase the fragility and risk of operating an >> Internetwork. >> >> --gill >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Ron Bonica >> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM >> To: idr@ietf.org >> 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. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0R= on Bonica >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Idr mailing list >> Idr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >> _______________________________________________ >> Idr mailing list >> Idr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >> > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From raszuk@cisco.com Thu Jul 2 08:51:57 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 E5EFE28C1AA for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:51:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.371 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228, 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 bcjL+v7+Ucfv for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:51:56 -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 E37703A682E for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:51:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,335,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="336355340" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2009 15:52:14 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n62FqEq4016881; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:52:14 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n62FqEuj012734; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:52:14 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); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:52:13 -0700 Received: from [10.21.65.117] ([10.21.65.117]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:52:13 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4CD7AA.10609@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:52:10 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christopher Morrow References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 15:52:13.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[114144C0:01C9FB2D] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1696; t=1246549934; x=1247413934; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=GCpf0EKslNvCe2IIwRcVYjusPIo4xJnCAxFAWoLBNOo=; b=pmcUpVGCfSk6GZT488Pub0X+BP0Sz4vfHQSXHQttVMnzkt4/zMsZlFsN/0 cIaDP5Uf7t9Ux2G+xeRPdZJi31VjUPX41CiPiSRZTf/acJqAqhQaxAL0LQ5J ++SxLJ4GUz; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:51:58 -0000 Hi, > I share the 'overloading bgp yet again is a bad plan' but also > 'getting ops to run yet another thing on their hardware and arranging > that to work properly amongst their peers' is not trivial. (so this > goes into bgp, please keep it very simple, small payload + limited > ascii-set) Well I am not in the camp of folks who get high blood pressure if one wants to add new thing to BGP. I don't really think we are any close to overloading BGP or it's commercial implementations. But whatever we add for one should be useful for the operation and in the same time should not provide any means for negative impact on the existing mechanism. I am glad you share the small payload (hopefully with limited size) and limited character set to basic ASCII. Would the latter be acceptable for vendors making domestic equipment in various parts of the world ? But those are rather minor details which I think Tom would be willing to consider ... For me addition of free form text to fill your peer's syslog into BGP is questionable from the point of view that router will not be able to do any action on it. It is step into opposite direction as intelligent networks. It is forcing human to log in, search, read, parse, make a phone call (yes one of the example lists phone number) etc ... Sometimes I do wonder why we are so behind in networking that so much human intervention is required to operate it. As one of million examples: we have planes which can fly, start and land on an auto-pilot even in complete fog .. yet here we are adding more stuff which will force more human labor and human operational dependability. Cheers, R. From raszuk@cisco.com Thu Jul 2 09:05:50 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 96BF53A6988 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:05:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, 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 rQqhg65p93tf for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505903A69DA for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:04:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,335,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="174440187" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2009 16:04:56 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n62G4uH8017469; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:04:56 -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 n62G4uK0003955; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:04:56 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); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:04:55 -0700 Received: from [10.21.65.117] ([10.21.65.117]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:04:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:04:52 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dorian Kim References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> In-Reply-To: <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 16:04:55.0700 (UTC) FILETIME=[D75C7D40:01C9FB2E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1158; t=1246550696; x=1247414696; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=Lj9wx2UPIosNXXKXbHsTPHOyy/5kt1XBk7YDykNasf4=; b=W5m3pjdiTREIwobG58RmslylRwKxQ2IPLbXVZMt3pgl8QaaiB5bEwEhJH2 Odrmlj3xhH0UmXPmRiK+xxJGQMNbtphIEQ2UAaAl+mcHvs5EkKgd2RWfk/3n ydhpAScVrlt5aTr6fSOYTPDrEIWGP0VNaJUVCVlCefdYYGF4UkYx8=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:05:50 -0000 Hi Dorian, > Given the actual practices of operators today, and the realities of poor > coordination in most cases, this proposal will provide a net benefit > to day to day operations of the Internet. It will - I agree. But it will by a sort of patch and accept the actual practices and realities of poor coordination isn't it ? I think some people at last IETF proposed to look into INFORM draft ... It can be extended with as many pre-defined messages as required. I have not see much discussion comparing both. I think we here are essentially making the call if free form text to syslog/show command is something we should endorse in the BGP protocol or not. If we do let's proceed with the advisory draft making it just a bit more robust, if not let's resubmit INFORM and make sure it will address all BGP messaging requirements in a well pre-defined form. Or perhaps both should be done ? > Whether the benefit is worth the cost in abstract is unclear to me, but it > certainly is far more useful than any number of other things people have > shoehorned into BGP of late. You got a point :) Cheers, R. From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Thu Jul 2 09:11:50 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 9C1DF3A6B86 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:11:50 -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 ZEia6M3YT3tM for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from synchronicity.convergence.cx (synchronicity.convergence.cx [195.8.70.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD943A6C2C for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=tdcdf1) by synchronicity.convergence.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MMOpm-0004w5-Vw for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:08:27 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4CDB7A.5020606@uk.clara.net> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:08:26 +0100 From: David Freedman Organization: Claranet LImited User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "idr@ietf.org >> idr" References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <4A4CD7AA.10609@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4A4CD7AA.10609@cisco.com> 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:11:50 -0000 > But those are rather minor details which I think Tom would be willing to > consider ... For me addition of free form text to fill your peer's > syslog into BGP is questionable from the point of view that router will > not be able to do any action on it. It is step into opposite direction > as intelligent networks. It is forcing human to log in, search, read, > parse, make a phone call (yes one of the example lists phone number) etc > ... My view is that we should have a minimal number of standardised message types (admin, operational etc..) and then allow these to provide freetext payloads, you could provide a "vendor-specific" type to cover where routers from the same vendor which to exchange structured payloads (which will end up displaying structured notices / flags in their CLI) Am careful to make it "Vendor Specific" rather than not so (i.e generic "Machine-Machine") as I feel this would encourage us to try and standardise the payload of this type which starts to go against the spirit of the draft. We can leave that to the vendors to implement if they wish to further enrich their products. Dave. From christopher.morrow@gmail.com Thu Jul 2 09:43:08 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 05B053A6938 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:43:08 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 ptpz2UwonOdd for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.240]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252B83A6A59 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so690909anc.4 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:43:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=X572IYRDQpCYpIJFOU4BiP4QZ+pKzFc7bI382puZD3w=; b=ersXwEua8WyTIdmZzi+sPitsMnRP5w5E0x3igFD5UndEONEDPsaCEL/A2b1P0ROAw6 w6yG5ZAxqjJUnrVEvv0FufkCLSEEjwMZENQmvmH4i5xHRJVBC5OgAdjFZcDTy6YrCJPU 7t6MfRW96F8oj4AzIcNb0bN2Xz0WKRr9R7aYk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=jDNsSUvQZvO286HWToo/JLfKlMDWBpuBCGAr+K7OSZM9aYjzLDimJlfvsnA6+LEBFr gXwRjMJTSrAcJFz999b/0Kkpl5Oxy/3MC5z96Mjkqnt74K8X+Bk1Z6HHgSuCSGdRDd8V duiA7Gokqp8i5U4MSYyBGpJbhSQ1/md0A46po= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.178.3 with SMTP id a3mr383800anf.59.1246552993354; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:43:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A4CD7AA.10609@cisco.com> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <4A4CD7AA.10609@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:43:13 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: b415f4140c340918 Message-ID: <75cb24520907020943q1c9d1904nfa2f2b6efc0c8c0c@mail.gmail.com> From: Christopher Morrow To: idr@ietf.org 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:43:08 -0000 On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > But those are rather minor details which I think Tom would be willing to > consider ... For me addition of free form text to fill your peer's syslog > into BGP is questionable from the point of view that router will not be able > to do any action on it. It is step into opposite direction as intelligent > networks. It is forcing human to log in, search, read, parse, make a phone > call (yes one of the example lists phone number) etc ... I did say something about netcool, or other syslog aggragators. I don't expect (though it's likely going to happen) people to login to routers to see 'oh yes session X is down with message Y', but I do expect my syslog aggragator to get this message and pref/depref some other alerting mechanism so my 'NOC' doesn't have to go chasing some bouncing peer. Again though, this is sort of in the weeds of the 'should this be here in the first place' discussion. So far there have been ~10-15 'yes please have IDR do this work' messages, I didn't see any 'no idr for you!' messages, did I miss them? -chris From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Wed Jul 1 14:49:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 7BCCE3A6AA4; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:49:15 -0700 (PDT) To: erosen@cisco.com,uttaro@att.com,pmohapat@cisco.com,rex@juniper.net From: IETF Secretariat Message-Id: <20090701214915.7BCCE3A6AA4@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:49:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:45:30 -0700 Cc: idr@ietf.org, adrian.farrel@huawei.com, jgs@bgp.nu, shares@ghs.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-aigp-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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:49:15 -0000 Dear Eric Rosen, James Uttaro, Pradosh Mohapatra, Rex Fernando: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP" (draft-ietf-idr-aigp) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2009-06-30 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1159/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-aigp-00." The IETF Secretariat From russ@cisco.com Wed Jul 1 14:50:10 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 984003A6F71 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:50:10 -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 8AwCn77sPONz for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:50:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FF03A6F6F for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,328,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="49151892" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2009 21:50:30 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n61LoUOn004771; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 17:50:30 -0400 Received: from Macintosh-58.local (rtp-vpn5-1568.cisco.com [10.82.238.38]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n61LoTkW017525; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:50:30 GMT Message-ID: <4A4BDA25.6050105@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:50:29 -0400 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Susan Hares References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=740; t=1246485030; x=1247349030; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=russ@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Idr]=20Thank=20you=20Yakov! |Sender:=20 |To:=20Susan=20Hares=20; bh=CQ8gR9UWRHsPErEY1Dr8v4Cwz6q/u7+10t5EHk7wzGY=; b=u3RAvdXIIT+kzia0jw5c5nekBNndavnW5JsZDdee3fSU4u3f12J1v3aggO XK8uuPUdFH1iusmMmA35Xw3CFnQW7NU0N8clx7kspc9IVv87MNkxFMjs0FvT yE7vvOYHcV; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=russ@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:45:30 -0700 Cc: idr@ietf.org, yakov@juniper.net Subject: Re: [Idr] Thank you Yakov! 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 21:50:10 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I want to thank Yakov Rekhter for many years of leadership for IDR. > Yakov has been a wonderful mentor to me and to many others. I shall > miss his humor, wisdom and kindness. Me, too. Sorry to see you go, Yakov. > Please welcome John Scudder as co-chair. I can't figure out whether I should feel more sorry for Sue, or for John. I'll think about it and get back to y'all.... :-) Russ - -- russ@cisco.com CCIE CCDE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKS9olER27sUhU9OQRAupMAKDy0YrN4m/QP605DhJEvQJWtKDklwCgyb7Q 5Xz816x+Ume/A1TzzMpfmMA= =9GEV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dorian@jail.blackrose.org Thu Jul 2 08:50:42 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 AEAE73A6B3C for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:50:42 -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 yLi0CkAdj7tk for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jail.blackrose.org (thorn.blackrose.org [204.42.254.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E3728C1B2 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jail.blackrose.org (thorn.blackrose.org [204.42.254.7]) by jail.blackrose.org (8.14.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n62FpdGg058104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:51:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dorian@jail.blackrose.org) Received: (from dorian@localhost) by jail.blackrose.org (8.14.3/8.13.3/Submit) id n62FpdCU058100; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:51:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dorian) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:51:39 -0400 From: Dorian Kim To: Christopher Morrow Message-ID: <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (jail.blackrose.org [204.42.254.7]); Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:51:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:45:30 -0700 Cc: raszuk@cisco.com, 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:54:14 -0000 On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:20:41AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > I share the 'overloading bgp yet again is a bad plan' but also This ship has sailed long ago unfortunately, and at this point I think the "overloading bgp yet again is a bad plan" cry is reaching the point of "save the children". > 'getting ops to run yet another thing on their hardware and arranging > that to work properly amongst their peers' is not trivial. (so this > goes into bgp, please keep it very simple, small payload + limited > ascii-set) Given the actual practices of operators today, and the realities of poor coordination in most cases, this proposal will provide a net benefit to day to day operations of the Internet. Whether the benefit is worth the cost in abstract is unclear to me, but it certainly is far more useful than any number of other things people have shoehorned into BGP of late. I support the adoption of this as a WG item. -dorian > >> However, and I'm sure we will get into this as the WG proceeds, I think > >> there are fundamental elements of this which are bad.  Notably, I don't > >> think that bloating BGP with operator-to-operator messages is a good > >> move to maintain a stable, secure (fwiw) protocol. > >> > >> I agree that the problem of op-2-op communication needs more attention, > >> and I hope with this starting point the WG can forge a reasonable > >> solution that doesn't increase the fragility and risk of operating an > >> Internetwork. From andy@nosignal.org Thu Jul 2 09:48:35 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 ED32E3A6B94 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:48:35 -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 8S8Gpq47C4fv for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chilli.nosignal.org (chilli.nosignal.org [91.194.68.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147F03A6A08 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:48:35 -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 1MMPSK-0004Hj-Qg; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:48:20 +0100 Message-Id: From: Andy Davidson To: "Gill, James E (gill)" In-Reply-To: <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.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: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:48:28 +0100 References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:48:36 -0000 On 2 Jul 2009, at 14:59, Gill, James E (gill) wrote: > However, and I'm sure we will get into this as the WG proceeds, I > think > there are fundamental elements of this which are bad. Notably, I > don't > think that bloating BGP with operator-to-operator messages is a good > move to maintain a stable, secure (fwiw) protocol. Hi, I do NOT share your view. We have seen evidence of real disruption on the internet caused by the lack of a soft-notify feature in BGP (e.g. ASN32 error causing hard notify and session drop), that a soft-notify (send message and discard update message) would solve. Furthermore I can not use the advisory feature to disrupt BGP stability on the internet because my messages to peers are not transited to their peers. Unlike, for example, bgp attributes which are transited, and *can* lead to routing instability, in the event that malicious activity is attempted, or accidents occur. This is a safe proposal, and a useful feature. Please support it's adoption as a WG item and eventually an internet standard. Andy From lixia@cs.ucla.edu Thu Jul 2 09:57:34 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 AA50228C21F for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, 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 af0DoPPVD+ru for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE2828C19E for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4526139E80C4; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TeitAnMwNbJa; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (cpe-98-151-52-146.socal.res.rr.com [98.151.52.146]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698FD39E80D2; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: Lixia Zhang To: Russ White In-Reply-To: <4A4BDA25.6050105@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: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:43 -0700 References: <4A4BDA25.6050105@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Cc: idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares , yakov@juniper.net Subject: Re: [Idr] Thank you Yakov! 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, 02 Jul 2009 16:57:34 -0000 On Jul 1, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Russ White wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > >> I want to thank Yakov Rekhter for many years of leadership for IDR. >> Yakov has been a wonderful mentor to me and to many others. I shall >> miss his humor, wisdom and kindness. > > Me, too. Sorry to see you go, Yakov. I do hope to see Yakov in all future IDR meetings and continue his humor, wisdom, and kindness. he'll just sit on the different side of the table:-) > >> Please welcome John Scudder as co-chair. > > I can't figure out whether I should feel more sorry for Sue, or for > John. I'll think about it and get back to y'all.... :-) > > Russ > > - -- > russ@cisco.com CCIE CCDE <>< Grace Alone > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFKS9olER27sUhU9OQRAupMAKDy0YrN4m/QP605DhJEvQJWtKDklwCgyb7Q > 5Xz816x+Ume/A1TzzMpfmMA= > =9GEV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From dorian@jail.blackrose.org Thu Jul 2 09:57:51 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 1350028C147 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.306, 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 92YuMzPAivse for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jail.blackrose.org (thorn.blackrose.org [204.42.254.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE4528C19E for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jail.blackrose.org (thorn.blackrose.org [204.42.254.7]) by jail.blackrose.org (8.14.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n62GwnTP074115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:58:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dorian@jail.blackrose.org) Received: (from dorian@localhost) by jail.blackrose.org (8.14.3/8.13.3/Submit) id n62Gwnr6074114; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:58:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dorian) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:58:49 -0400 From: Dorian Kim To: Robert Raszuk Message-ID: <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (jail.blackrose.org [204.42.254.7]); Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:58:49 -0400 (EDT) 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:57:51 -0000 On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:04:52AM -0700, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Dorian, > >> Given the actual practices of operators today, and the realities of poor >> coordination in most cases, this proposal will provide a net benefit >> to day to day operations of the Internet. > > It will - I agree. But it will by a sort of patch and accept the actual > practices and realities of poor coordination isn't it ? I think too much discussions down this path will lead us into varying degress of organisational pathologies and not very useful. IDR will not and cannot change the way ISPs operate nor will it be able to address the root cause of the disfunction in inter-ISP and even intra-ISP communications. That's almost entirely in the realm of social engineering and we've been down that road many times before to no fruitful end. Leaving that aside, people who run networks are asking for this because it solves a real world problem they encounter. That by itself should in my opinion be enough for the working group to decide on "should this be discussed and worked on here" question. > I think some people at last IETF proposed to look into INFORM draft ... It > can be extended with as many pre-defined messages as required. I have not > see much discussion comparing both. > > I think we here are essentially making the call if free form text to > syslog/show command is something we should endorse in the BGP protocol or > not. > > If we do let's proceed with the advisory draft making it just a bit more > robust, if not let's resubmit INFORM and make sure it will address all BGP > messaging requirements in a well pre-defined form. > > Or perhaps both should be done ? I'm most likely not the best advocate for this draft since I'm somewhat lukewarm about its benefit given the cost. However, allow me to bring up and analogy with all the usual caveats inherent in anaologies. CLNS host info doesn't by itself amount to much, but has shown itself to be of many time saving operational uses. So to that extent, some facilities for having a limited free form text to syslog command tied to BGP may be of more use than we can think of at the moment. -dorian From jgs@juniper.net Thu Jul 2 11:07:07 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 886AE3A6D8F for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:07:07 -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 Xgb2EvR6gsqo for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FF03A6D5F for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob118.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkz3YHMT+5geCSWMSue1RBT/E3+jhtR/@postini.com; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:07:29 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, 2 Jul 2009 11:02:36 -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, 2 Jul 2009 11:02:36 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp55.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.132]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:02:36 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:02:35 -0700 Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n62I2YL78001; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:02:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net) Message-ID: From: "John G. Scudder" To: idr List In-Reply-To: <4A4BDA25.6050105@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: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:02:34 -0400 References: <4A4BDA25.6050105@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 18:02:35.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[47361D50:01C9FB3F] Cc: Yakov Rekhter , Susan Hares Subject: Re: [Idr] Thank you Yakov! 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, 02 Jul 2009 18:07:07 -0000 On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Russ White wrote: > Me, too. Sorry to see you go, Yakov. And so am I! I'll do my best with what someone described to me as "huge shoes to fill". Adding my thanks for Yakov's years of service, --John From vgill@vijaygill.com Thu Jul 2 11:08:04 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 F0D0D3A6DCD for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:08:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 p5mh+2jne1V3 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-px0-f178.google.com (mail-px0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0203A6DB5 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pxi8 with SMTP id 8so2202052pxi.29 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:08:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.158.14 with SMTP id g14mr432187wae.150.1246558102810; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:08:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:08:22 -0700 Message-ID: <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> From: vijay gill To: Dorian Kim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Robert Raszuk , 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:08:04 -0000 On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Dorian Kim wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:04:52AM -0700, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> Hi Dorian, >> >>> Given the actual practices of operators today, and the realities of poo= r >>> coordination in most cases, this proposal will provide a net benefit >>> to day to day operations of the Internet. >> >> It will - I agree. But it will by a sort of patch and accept the actual >> practices and realities of poor coordination isn't it ? > > I think too much discussions down this path will lead us into varying > degress of organisational pathologies and not very useful. IDR will not > and cannot change the way ISPs operate nor will it be able to =A0address = the > root cause of the disfunction in inter-ISP and even intra-ISP communicati= ons. > > That's almost entirely in the realm of social engineering and we've been = down > that road many times before to no fruitful end. > > Leaving that aside, people who run networks are asking for this because i= t solves > a real world problem they encounter. That by itself should in my opinion = be enough > for the working group to decide on "should this be discussed and worked o= n here" > question. > >> I think some people at last IETF proposed to look into INFORM draft ... = It >> can be extended with as many pre-defined messages as required. I have no= t >> see much discussion comparing both. >> >> I think we here are essentially making the call if free form text to >> syslog/show command is something we should endorse in the BGP protocol o= r >> not. >> >> If we do let's proceed with the advisory draft making it just a bit more >> robust, if not let's resubmit INFORM and make sure it will address all B= GP >> messaging requirements in a well pre-defined form. >> >> Or perhaps both should be done ? > > I'm most likely not the best advocate for this draft since I'm somewhat l= ukewarm > about its benefit given the cost. However, allow me to bring up and analo= gy > with all the usual caveats inherent in anaologies. CLNS host info doesn't= by > itself amount to much, but has shown itself to be of many time saving ope= rational > uses. So to that extent, some facilities for having a limited free form t= ext > to syslog command tied to BGP may be of more use than we can think of at = the moment. I disagree strongly with the operational reality of this draft. It may be useful for some folks who have the time to actually sync up and talk with another person on the far side of an _already_ operational BGP session. That corner case is not common enough to actually make this useful in my opinion. The real utility might be if the session was not established and in that case we fall back to OOB communication anyway. /vijay > > -dorian > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From ras@gerbil.cluepon.net Thu Jul 2 11:19:12 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 10FFE28C268 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:19:12 -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 jj3qyhkyT4Uu for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gerbil.cluepon.net (e-gerbil.net [69.31.1.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DD93A6DDE for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:18:44 -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 n62IJ6aN012190 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:19:06 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras@gerbil.cluepon.net) Received: (from ras@localhost) by gerbil.cluepon.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n62IJ6q6012189 for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:19:06 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:19:06 -0500 From: Richard A Steenbergen To: idr@ietf.org Message-ID: <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:19:12 -0000 On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:08:22AM -0700, vijay gill wrote: > I disagree strongly with the operational reality of this draft. It may > be useful for some folks who have the time to actually sync up and > talk with another person on the far side of an _already_ operational > BGP session. That corner case is not common enough to actually make > this useful in my opinion. The real utility might be if the session > was not established and in that case we fall back to OOB communication > anyway. Funny, I've heard from many operations folks at Google who said they really wanted this feature, and saw immediate uses for it. Clearly this isn't the most elegant feature in the world, it certainly isn't impressing anyone up in the ivory tower, but for those of us who actually operate networks (and no, working for a company who has a network is not the same thing as being a network operator), the benefits are clear and compelling. -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) From jgs@juniper.net Thu Jul 2 11:31:42 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 B9C9B28C285 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:31:42 -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 bkF-o98sR86O for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A4928C288 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSkz8iB6AS0WKqVgD23CX/HAXXH3mmTS0@postini.com; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:29:41 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, 2 Jul 2009 11:24:14 -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, 2 Jul 2009 11:24:14 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp55.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.132]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:24:13 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:24:13 -0700 Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n62IOCL89123; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:24:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net) Message-ID: <61CFA984-8716-4FD3-A2D1-CC4D27E8803B@juniper.net> From: "John G. Scudder" To: "curtis@occnc.com" In-Reply-To: <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.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: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:09:44 -0400 References: <200907020348.n623mIJk032659@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 18:24:13.0113 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CC48290:01C9FB42] Cc: idr List 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:31:42 -0000 On Jul 1, 2009, at 11:48 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > Would it be wise to explicitly limit the scope of these messages to > the immediate peer and its logging so that the global internet isn't > bloated with advisory messages that are only of interest to a pair of > providers somewhere? I didn't see where that limit was recommended. It's a new message type and has no semantics defined other than being logged by the receiving party, so it's implicitly scoped. For it NOT to be locally scoped, some sort of propagation semantics would have to be defined. --John (with co-author hat on and co-chair hat off) From vgill@vijaygill.com Thu Jul 2 11:32:00 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 21B7428C2B2 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.677 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 AhPCAavPTYYH for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26BE28C2E4 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxe12 with SMTP id 12so2929727yxe.29 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:31:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.141.17 with SMTP id o17mr485606and.160.1246559501061; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:31:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:31:39 -0700 Message-ID: <21ef2c1c0907021131g2fa4e7f6l2c087958e0d4221d@mail.gmail.com> From: vijay gill To: Richard A Steenbergen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:32:00 -0000 On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wr= ote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:08:22AM -0700, vijay gill wrote: >> I disagree strongly with the operational reality of this draft. It may >> be useful for some folks who have the time to actually sync up and >> talk with another person on the far side of an _already_ operational >> BGP session. That corner case is not common enough to actually make >> this useful in my opinion. The real utility might be if the session >> was not established and in that case we fall back to OOB communication >> anyway. > > Funny, I've heard from many operations folks at Google who said they > really wanted this feature, and saw immediate uses for it. Clearly this > isn't the most elegant feature in the world, it certainly isn't > impressing anyone up in the ivory tower, but for those of us who > actually operate networks (and no, working for a company who has a > network is not the same thing as being a network operator), the benefits > are clear and compelling. Let me know who these are, oob, and we'll go from there /vijay > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.e-gerbil.= net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC= ) > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From jabley@hopcount.ca Thu Jul 2 12:44:54 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 4399328C13A for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.824 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.776, 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 ws11fr7EB2XG for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28963A6E18 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:44:32 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=hopcount.ca; h=Received:Cc:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer; b=F7heozc57YJx37F4hYn0SGyOdv2WsE8YdTuzZjv13ctaZIQgR6ZeRtDghtcqh+n+xSyrrPzeuDtICucdWCrCyXLOfIEtRr+KqVlLUitOXOgg9FiQEIltByhdoQLSYBxJ; Received: from [199.212.90.19] (helo=dh19.r2.owls.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1MMSBz-000Iul-Or; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:43:36 +0000 Message-Id: From: Joe Abley To: vijay gill In-Reply-To: <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.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: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:43:34 -0400 References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Cc: Robert Raszuk , idr@ietf.org, Dorian Kim 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:44:54 -0000 On 2-Jul-2009, at 14:08, vijay gill wrote: > I disagree strongly with the operational reality of this draft. It may > be useful for some folks who have the time to actually sync up and > talk with another person on the far side of an _already_ operational > BGP session. That corner case is not common enough to actually make > this useful in my opinion. The real utility might be if the session > was not established and in that case we fall back to OOB communication > anyway. I have spent some time over the past few years (and continue to spend time) with small, regional ISPs whose network topology is not sufficiently complicated for BGP specialists to be employed, or for elaborate network management tools with hooks into ticket systems to exist. For these people, the reality is that the guy who is most familiar on the day with the router in question dives in and takes a look, trawls through logs, and types a bunch of show commands. Out-of-band communication with staff at other organisations will follow, but that communication is typically far more targeted and useful if there is a readable indication of the context for an operational state than if people have to guess. It has been my observation that amongst people who aren't full-time router jockeys, the initial three or four e-mail exchanges are pretty wide of the mark. If (for example) they could quote a ticket number or some other meaningful text along with their initial communication, chances are good that streamlining could occur. I am not familiar in any current, hands-on sense with large hosting organisations, and no doubt the state of the art has moved on since I last had my fingers in the router of a default-free backbone operator. However, I would suggest that in the circles I described a simple, textual capability along the lines of that described would have substantial value. I support this draft's adoption by idr and its further refinement by the working group. Joe From james.gill@verizonbusiness.com Thu Jul 2 12:45:13 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 B96E428C193 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:45:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2X9CWBOKGrpF for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omzesmtp02a.verizonbusiness.com (omzesmtp02a.verizonbusiness.com [199.249.25.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08423A67AC for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omzismtp02.vzbi.com ([165.122.46.167]) by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KM60017Q6NVPM00@firewall.verizonbusiness.com> for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from omzismtp02.vzbi.com ([127.0.0.1]) by omzismtp02.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KM600IFW6NVFQ00@omzismtp02.vzbi.com> for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ASHSRV140.mcilink.com ([153.39.68.166]) by omzismtp02.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KM600ICH6NSCH00@omzismtp02.vzbi.com> for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ASHEVS017.vzbi.com ([153.39.71.100]) by ASHSRV140.mcilink.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:43 +0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:42 +0000 Message-id: <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> In-reply-to: <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-topic: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory Thread-index: Acn7QbI/fw4JVq+KRHG7Zxayn4zEfgABhGdA References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> From: "Gill, James E (gill)" To: Richard A Steenbergen , idr@ietf.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 19:40:43.0085 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC9AA7D0:01C9FB4C] 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:45:13 -0000 =20 With some trepidation I wade into the discussion on the opposite side of many minds wiser than mine, but here goes... The benefits are clear and compelling, but the method isn't (to me). The argument that BGP is already overloaded isn't enough to convince me that this is an appropriate feature to add into a routing protocol. Mom always said two wrongs don't make a right. A separate protocol might be defined for a daemon might run alongside BGPd and do essentially what this document suggests (Perhaps the draft R. Raszuk mentioned earlier, INFORM, is worth a look here). Separating this function from the BGPd means that it could be turned off if it was problematic or when it wasn't necessary any more, or re-used later when something better than BGP comes along*. To some extent, this mindset is left over from the unix-y idea that tools/code should "do one thing and do it well." The work to get your peers and customers to upgrade their code and turn on such a feature would be approximately equal to the work of getting them to upgrade their code and configure these new features that are being proposed as additions to BGP. In either case, someone has to actually read and react to these notices or it does nothing. That isn't garunteed, but it would presumably put these messages into the syslog along with the BGP entries and make troubleshooting/postmortem easier, even if it won't get the message to the right humans before the event occurrs. Let me cut and paste a paragraph here: IMO the need for this kind of communication exists independent of any EGP and should be defined separately. We are all in "business" which means we all have suppliers (upstreams/peers) and customers (downstreams), and a key component of any business is communicating with your suppliers and customers. Just because we all happen to speak BGP does not mean that BGP needs to be the protocol through which we make our important communication. --gill * Heretical? Possibly. -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard A Steenbergen Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 2:19 PM To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:08:22AM -0700, vijay gill wrote: > I disagree strongly with the operational reality of this draft. It may > be useful for some folks who have the time to actually sync up and=20 > talk with another person on the far side of an _already_ operational=20 > BGP session. That corner case is not common enough to actually make=20 > this useful in my opinion. The real utility might be if the session=20 > was not established and in that case we fall back to OOB communication > anyway. Funny, I've heard from many operations folks at Google who said they really wanted this feature, and saw immediate uses for it. Clearly this isn't the most elegant feature in the world, it certainly isn't impressing anyone up in the ivory tower, but for those of us who actually operate networks (and no, working for a company who has a network is not the same thing as being a network operator), the benefits are clear and compelling. --=20 Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From vgill@vijaygill.com Thu Jul 2 12:59:35 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 B16803A6B6C for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 wln7LGfWQmVl for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51FE3A6A97 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxe12 with SMTP id 12so3023663yxe.29 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:59:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.69.6 with SMTP id w6mr711189ank.6.1246564789944; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:59:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:59:49 -0700 Message-ID: <21ef2c1c0907021259i2d93d5deg8f07d1525f597f15@mail.gmail.com> From: vijay gill To: Joe Abley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert Raszuk , idr@ietf.org, Dorian Kim 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:59:35 -0000 On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 2-Jul-2009, at 14:08, vijay gill wrote: > >> I disagree strongly with the operational reality of this draft. It may >> be useful for some folks who have the time to actually sync up and >> talk with another person on the far side of an _already_ operational >> BGP session. That corner case is not common enough to actually make >> this useful in my opinion. The real utility might be if the session >> was not established and in that case we fall back to OOB communication >> anyway. > > I have spent some time over the past few years (and continue to spend time) > with small, regional ISPs whose network topology is not sufficiently > complicated for BGP specialists to be employed, or for elaborate network > management tools with hooks into ticket systems to exist. > > For these people, the reality is that the guy who is most familiar on the > day with the router in question dives in and takes a look, trawls through > logs, and types a bunch of show commands. Out-of-band communication with > staff at other organisations will follow, but that communication is > typically far more targeted and useful if there is a readable indication of > the context for an operational state than if people have to guess. > > It has been my observation that amongst people who aren't full-time router > jockeys, the initial three or four e-mail exchanges are pretty wide of the > mark. If (for example) they could quote a ticket number or some other > meaningful text along with their initial communication, chances are good > that streamlining could occur. > I am not familiar in any current, hands-on sense with large hosting > organisations, and no doubt the state of the art has moved on since I last > had my fingers in the router of a default-free backbone operator. However, I > would suggest that in the circles I described a simple, textual capability > along the lines of that described would have substantial value. > > I support this draft's adoption by idr and its further refinement by the > working group. I still disagree, but after conversation with ras et al, I withdraw my objection and let the cards fall as they may. /vijay > > Joe > From ras@gerbil.cluepon.net Thu Jul 2 13:20:46 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 0ADC33A6AC0 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:20:46 -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 fVwPAYUWYiaa for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gerbil.cluepon.net (e-gerbil.net [69.31.1.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1C83A696C for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:20:45 -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 n62KL3B0012967; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:21:03 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras@gerbil.cluepon.net) Received: (from ras@localhost) by gerbil.cluepon.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n62KL2QA012966; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:21:02 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:21:02 -0500 From: Richard A Steenbergen To: "Gill, James E (gill)" Message-ID: <20090702202102.GX51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:20:46 -0000 On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:40:42PM +0000, Gill, James E (gill) wrote: > > The benefits are clear and compelling, but the method isn't (to me). > > The argument that BGP is already overloaded isn't enough to convince me > that this is an appropriate feature to add into a routing protocol. Mom > always said two wrongs don't make a right. > > A separate protocol might be defined for a daemon might run alongside > BGPd and do essentially what this document suggests (Perhaps the draft > R. Raszuk mentioned earlier, INFORM, is worth a look here). Separating > this function from the BGPd means that it could be turned off if it was > problematic or when it wasn't necessary any more, or re-used later when > something better than BGP comes along*. To some extent, this mindset is > left over from the unix-y idea that tools/code should "do one thing and > do it well." Last I looked most existing BGP implementations already dealt with things like receiving notifications from peers and generating syslog or snmp traps based on those events without requiring a separate process. The draft proposal here is simply adding another type of event to log on, using the exact same mechanisms already in place to log other events. I don't see the benefit in creating another protocol for this specific message type, only unnecessary additional complexity and the destruction of the implied relationship (authentication, etc) provided by in-band signaling over the existing established BGP sessions. Besides, since the message is specifically for and about one particular BGP session anyways, why would you want to handle it any other way? -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) From crimson@sidehack.sat.gweep.net Thu Jul 2 13:28:29 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 44EE63A6AC0 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 A9-j8sHIgPaV for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sidehack.sat.gweep.net (sidehack.sat.gweep.net [204.145.148.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A7953A68DA for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 578 invoked by uid 524); 2 Jul 2009 20:28:19 -0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:28:19 -0400 From: Joe Provo To: idr@ietf.org Message-ID: <20090702202818.GA94841@gweep.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-PGP-Key: http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt X-Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." Organization: RSUC - If we don't do it, you don't need it. X-Do-Not-Email-Here: xenophobic@spammers.can-bite-me.com Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:28:29 -0000 On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:40:42PM +0000, Gill, James E (gill) wrote: [snip] > The work to get your peers and customers to upgrade their code and turn > on such a feature would be approximately equal to the work of getting > them to upgrade their code and configure these new features that are > being proposed as additions to BGP. Your suggestion posits creation (and worse, maintenance) of a separate adjacency. The proposed draft does not. This simplification alone is a dramatic win. In future, should the code be part of mainstream bgp releases, new neighbors would just have this capability from the get-go, rather than need to set up the separate adjacency; therefore over time the net workload is reduced. Your suggested parallel adjacency creates a constant additional workload without future optimization as it is mainstreamed. Again, win for advisory. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE From raszuk@cisco.com Thu Jul 2 14:07:51 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 63B9D3A68D8 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.436 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, 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 8jeEHk4Nqbqy for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:07:50 -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 60CB33A6807 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:07:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,337,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="336535100" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2009 21:08:13 +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 n62L8DNV005451; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:08:13 -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 n62L8DUo014993; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:08:13 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); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:08:13 -0700 Received: from [10.21.119.69] ([10.21.119.69]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:08:12 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:08:08 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Abley References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 21:08:12.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[357B8B80:01C9FB59] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3044; t=1246568893; x=1247432893; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=DOlGcuCwiEC5PRFiQ0cvrJQJFs3XF6SYTvts1XqS9PM=; b=QjF0tA3CKwJAx1yrtA1T3osd8M1/3i7R4zotNJu8Bn8OtTk5GW8kBbNvY1 Fw/0AjF+n2Nmq50wxAPiOd+QEHMOGIjW446fTAbvm0XaI8OM8X+Qyi3wTlD1 gHa8o6edT6; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: idr@ietf.org, vijay gill , Dorian Kim Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:07:51 -0000 Hi Joe, Very true email. But something here is not synchronizing for me well. * Do you think that those big providers would even care to tell the small few router guys over new advisory msg that they are going to be down if they don't tell them today via any other means ? What is so magic about this new way of communication ? * We have number of proposals in IETF for graceful BGP shutdown. Great work, but why bother if we can just inject advisory msg saying "You guys are going to be down soon .. be aware and prepared." * I really wish someone would come with this idea years ago ... It would save huge resources of development spend for features like Non-Stop-Routing to make any ASBR/PE any potentially disruptive operational activity 100% transparent to the peer. It would be so much easier to implement this draft then just shoot an advisory message to them and be done. Cheers, R. > On 2-Jul-2009, at 14:08, vijay gill wrote: > >> I disagree strongly with the operational reality of this draft. It may >> be useful for some folks who have the time to actually sync up and >> talk with another person on the far side of an _already_ operational >> BGP session. That corner case is not common enough to actually make >> this useful in my opinion. The real utility might be if the session >> was not established and in that case we fall back to OOB communication >> anyway. > > I have spent some time over the past few years (and continue to spend > time) with small, regional ISPs whose network topology is not > sufficiently complicated for BGP specialists to be employed, or for > elaborate network management tools with hooks into ticket systems to exist. > > For these people, the reality is that the guy who is most familiar on > the day with the router in question dives in and takes a look, trawls > through logs, and types a bunch of show commands. Out-of-band > communication with staff at other organisations will follow, but that > communication is typically far more targeted and useful if there is a > readable indication of the context for an operational state than if > people have to guess. > > It has been my observation that amongst people who aren't full-time > router jockeys, the initial three or four e-mail exchanges are pretty > wide of the mark. If (for example) they could quote a ticket number or > some other meaningful text along with their initial communication, > chances are good that streamlining could occur. > > I am not familiar in any current, hands-on sense with large hosting > organisations, and no doubt the state of the art has moved on since I > last had my fingers in the router of a default-free backbone operator. > However, I would suggest that in the circles I described a simple, > textual capability along the lines of that described would have > substantial value. > > I support this draft's adoption by idr and its further refinement by the > working group. > > > Joe > From ts3127@att.com Thu Jul 2 14:18:19 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 993EE3A6B00 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:18:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 KCA+7aVfxWPN for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C073A6947 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: ts3127@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1246569519!27855146!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.112.25] Received: (qmail 7842 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2009 21:18:40 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp3.sbc.com (HELO tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com) (144.160.112.25) by server-14.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jul 2009 21:18:40 -0000 Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n62LIcFh005167; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:18:39 -0500 Received: from gaalpa1msghub80.ITServices.sbc.com (gaalpa1msghub80.itservices.sbc.com [135.53.26.20]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n62LIU5r005026; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:18:32 -0500 Received: from gaalpa1msgusr73.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.53.8.26]) by gaalpa1msghub80.ITServices.sbc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:18:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:18:48 -0400 Message-ID: <22087C66F061B24EA008D146B7E9164304D54F13@gaalpa1msgusr73.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory Thread-Index: Acn7WT6ggq62PCE6RQehgYeUqWE7wwAAGE5Q From: "SCHOLL, TOM (ATTLABS)" To: , "Joe Abley" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 21:18:31.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[A68FF350:01C9FB5A] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.0.0.1607-5.6.1016-16740.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No-0.325300-0.000000-31 Cc: idr@ietf.org, vijay gill , Dorian Kim 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:18:19 -0000 > * I really wish someone would come with this idea years ago=20 > ... It would=20 > save huge resources of development spend for features like=20 > Non-Stop-Routing to make any ASBR/PE any potentially disruptive=20 > operational activity 100% transparent to the peer. It would=20 > be so much=20 > easier to implement this draft then just shoot an advisory message to=20 > them and be done. What does NSR have to do with links going down due to maintenance? Or cards on a router having to be replaced? From jyy_99@yahoo.com Thu Jul 2 15:54:53 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 CBACC3A6B10 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:54:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 c-AnzCkpHugd for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web53008.mail.re2.yahoo.com (web53008.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.49.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B09963A6AF2 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21764 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Jul 2009 22:55:02 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1246575302; bh=Be8j+hZ8BcbAewkaiMzdXnpfN5DvXXN1ZfNtVj67fhI=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YN/Nej5Hfwo+UpdPuc8LNWnzKMedJ2EE2bp3rTJcwubqK13J1/P6yk2m8Rdt29TndFH6w8A1z1FwElVrUkwA5PLJHkOJL35gpQaiVfbdUQ+HKOxWa8Gg7rEGYi3Mi6zvx86ibV2/mVFagThGyeONwSecImh0UtwO5g1PvrGzBCM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VdJFnvA2qP+ggpq+YbRboc3ujt48btIMe6nFsMYC6lAtTlUyiFH/UFK757tiT3q+5RyNpadc5UFiEH94oHBSVXz530PasOobengB9ne/yJjswkUDIe+BsbrJww6Ck5EOVMtcW93sVME8v9gH8l6zz6f4JAlS4Gmq5BxBggWkC8w=; Message-ID: <641018.18499.qm@web53008.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: TcQfB9gVM1lCx5KCbTDw2u1DmsqFF7nHGGjDtL3bEINC9hYau.P4H6LInDUifZd_VKZreomf.KYMpYGITYOWAjRsREj5j0mp.DrKlHS7qYXFjcloMYVcdampoXK0qs35CUTeLbTi55OLnYjB95YidQnWdOs2jqinthpQN.2DJW3vlEgiwpV4jzpoSbvFhioHgE2T8vOcy0r4qzQWtqqKu_yY7JLqYwUpJ.MNsSMlg3guSpKdaWfuw2sz_DQrIKTL3IwKutOSUtcTVk.MjuiAI1DLc9bPv40XTdOU8iTrVwI0C73.xQTRkbHMxRQ- Received: from [128.200.132.34] by web53008.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:55:02 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1357.22 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.15 References: <4A4BDA25.6050105@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:55:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Jessica Yu To: "John G. Scudder" , idr List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1262599260-1246575302=:18499" Cc: Yakov Rekhter Subject: Re: [Idr] Thank you Yakov! 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, 02 Jul 2009 22:54:53 -0000 --0-1262599260-1246575302=:18499 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, many thanks to Yakov for his almost 20-year service=A0as the Chair (co= -chair)=A0of BGP/IDR WG.=0A=0ABGP WG was renamed from Interconnectivity Wor= king Group (IWG) at Boulder IETF (IETF 19)=A0held in Dec. 1990. Yakov has b= een the chair and later co-chair since then. See http://www.ietf.org/procee= dings/prior29/IETF19.pdf. (page 309.)=0A=0AAs one of those who originally w= orked on BGP,=A0it's quite amazing=A0that it=A0is 20+ years old. =0A=0A--Je= ssica Yu=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: John G. Scudde= r =0ATo: idr List =0ACc: Yakov Rekhter ; Susan Hares =0ASent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 1= 1:02:34 AM=0ASubject: Re: [Idr] Thank you Yakov!=0A=0AOn Jul 1, 2009, at 5:= 50 PM, Russ White wrote:=0A> Me, too. Sorry to see you go, Yakov.=0A=0AAnd = so am I!=A0 I'll do my best with what someone described to me as "huge shoe= s to fill".=0A=0AAdding my thanks for Yakov's years of service,=0A=0A--John= =0A_______________________________________________=0AIdr mailing list=0AIdr= @ietf.org=0Ahttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1262599260-1246575302=:18499 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, many thanks to Yakov for his almost 20-year service as = the Chair (co-chair) of BGP/IDR WG.
=0A
 
=0A
B= GP WG was renamed from Interconnectivity Working Group (IWG) at Boulder IET= F (IETF 19) held in Dec. 1990. Yakov has been the chair and later co-c= hair since then. See http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/prior29/IETF19.pdf. (page 309.= )
=0A
As one of those who originally worked on BGP, it's = quite amazing that it is 20+ years old.
=0A
 =0A
--Jessica Yu
=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom: John G. Scudd= er <jgs@juniper.net>
To: idr List <idr@ietf.org>
Sent: Th= ursday, July 2, 2009 11:02:34 AM
Su= bject: Re: [Idr] Thank you Yakov!

On Jul 1, 2009, = at 5:50 PM, Russ White wrote:
> Me, too. Sorry to see you go, Yakov.<= BR>
And so am I!  I'll do my best with what someone described to me= as "huge shoes to fill".

Adding my thanks for Yakov's years of serv= ice,

--John
_______________________________________________
Id= r mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1262599260-1246575302=:18499-- From terry.mndrsn@gmail.com Thu Jul 2 17:45:18 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 7B1593A6A48 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:45:18 -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 H+FbE2Pxi7cj for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94D13A6988 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so786897wff.31 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=pHHoRIbWh3UlIoAdDUSDtZkPh1sRn7E0lEzwDfjUrdU=; b=YgVnmJ1zl+t7bIORNgOiOJEz4YMrFTmJZizFminI1npfYpmyBbWyQX3Zu/oY2NiMQp Z8phNWfXhRZlRtzV3IwS7XW3Hw5XjSzjrS5C2i6fXZvqby2JCerBQvXWU1P3ZcSnpqgJ e1wHrx+Pbn/OoV1rhorNrJZmomSi7jz0Moy8g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=oQDlO6N0+fCdCuI1YyesY0qHA7eOCeECPT0rFD1llbkIxqug9sHgfqUAtLxQTbdlnN Wz1gm4ExVdagYcEJ0NmkKh2iQOctN5Ll/toa2TpFxH7EeL8Dk18Ey08xFUmn3F0dQGTU Ew+g5HOXoIkdFoEcvqXdMHeBoKxkQqjb1rDSo= Received: by 10.143.13.16 with SMTP id q16mr315800wfi.256.1246581938771; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ([114.77.128.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b39sm546798rvf.2.2009.07.02.17.45.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Terry Manderson Message-Id: <8CFFAF52-12A5-4908-93B5-631D8E3025D3@terrym.net> From: Terry Manderson To: idr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20090702202818.GA94841@gweep.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: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:45:33 +1000 References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <20090702202818.GA94841@gweep.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:45:18 -0000 On 03/07/2009, at 6:28 AM, Joe Provo wrote: >> > The proposed draft does not. This simplification alone is > a dramatic win. I'm not averse to the idea. Conceptually I'm struggling with the position that a _routing protocol_ in its adjacency relationship is used for administrative Inter-AS(?presumably) NOC-to-NOC communications or alerts. That might be just me, and I may have silence the academic pedant in me, get over it and move on. I have a second concern that relates to the Charter of IDR. While IDR has a task of working on BGP, does NOC-to-NOC specifics fall in this mandate? If the chairs believe this is allowable then I'll agree that IDR should task itself with this draft as a WG document. Terry From gds@gds.best.vwh.net Thu Jul 2 18:02:35 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 BB2C03A6B36 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:02:35 -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 WuU8lvmYmpSC for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gds.best.vwh.net (gds.best.vwh.net [192.220.66.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203633A6ACC for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 87455 invoked by uid 17031); 3 Jul 2009 01:02:58 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:02:58 +0000 From: Greg Skinner To: idr@ietf.org Message-ID: <20090703010258.A71683@gds.best.vwh.net> References: <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <20090702202818.GA94841@gweep.net> <8CFFAF52-12A5-4908-93B5-631D8E3025D3@terrym.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <8CFFAF52-12A5-4908-93B5-631D8E3025D3@terrym.net>; from terry@terrym.net on Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:45:33AM +1000 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:02:35 -0000 On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:45:33AM +1000, Terry Manderson wrote: > I have a second concern that relates to the Charter of IDR. While IDR > has a task of working on BGP, does NOC-to-NOC specifics fall in this > mandate? If the chairs believe this is allowable then I'll agree that > IDR should task itself with this draft as a WG document. Is it possible that this should be in the O&M area, perhaps in the GROW WG? --gregbo From crimson@sidehack.sat.gweep.net Thu Jul 2 18:51:58 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 0D9983A69F1 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:51:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 WS5io2seKTQ3 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sidehack.sat.gweep.net (sidehack.sat.gweep.net [204.145.148.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0EE933A6895 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 34064 invoked by uid 524); 3 Jul 2009 01:51:42 -0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:51:42 -0400 From: Joe Provo To: Robert Raszuk Message-ID: <20090703015141.GA25936@gweep.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-PGP-Key: http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt X-Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." Organization: FSB Bait: FOIA counter-intelligence ACLU jet-A1 jet-A1 X-Do-Not-Email-Here: jzp@stop.email-abuse.org Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:51:58 -0000 On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:08:08PM -0700, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Joe, > > Very true email. Thanks. I like to think that we want all these computers to actually reduce aggregate workload rather than increase it. > * Do you think that those big providers would even care to tell the > small few router guys over new advisory msg that they are going to be > down if they don't tell them today via any other means ? What is so > magic about this new way of communication ? If manual, once it is part of the lowest-common-denominator NOC's flowchart, it will just happen. But an additional win of this proposal is leaving it up to implementation to allow automagic inform messages based on sane triggers, eg: - send advisory when peer hits x% of maxprefix - send a (limited) countdown to planned maintenance a la wall(1) when one is doing a "shutdown at " or its equivalent - when a neighbor is sending you so much trash that you're discarding X% of the prefixes - when additional address families are supported by a neighbor > * We have number of proposals in IETF for graceful BGP shutdown. Great > work, but why bother if we can just inject advisory msg saying "You guys > are going to be down soon .. be aware and prepared." > > * I really wish someone would come with this idea years ago ... It would > save huge resources of development spend for features like > Non-Stop-Routing to make any ASBR/PE any potentially disruptive > operational activity 100% transparent to the peer. It would be so much > easier to implement this draft then just shoot an advisory message to > them and be done. This is orthogonal to an graceful or nonstop mechanisms. First and most simply, as negotiated optional attributes, local policy may dictate what set of attributes are desirable to be supported. Those for whome GS, GR or NSF/NSR is scary might be more inclined to use advisory. Secondarily, automated methods will be better for those that opt to use them, so dismissing automated methods for human messaging ones seems to be a step backwards. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE From raszuk@cisco.com Fri Jul 3 00:40:33 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 201A23A683F for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.456 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, 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 u97GnXBIwQHy for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:40:32 -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 526083A6813 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:40:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,339,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="336801766" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2009 07:40:55 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n637et9W005498 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:40:55 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n637et8q025006 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:40:55 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); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:40:55 -0700 Received: from [10.21.93.104] ([10.21.93.104]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:40:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4DB604.1080306@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:40:52 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@ietf.org References: <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <20090702202818.GA94841@gweep.net> <8CFFAF52-12A5-4908-93B5-631D8E3025D3@terrym.net> <20090703010258.A71683@gds.best.vwh.net> In-Reply-To: <20090703010258.A71683@gds.best.vwh.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2009 07:40:55.0158 (UTC) FILETIME=[9901B960:01C9FBB1] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=386; t=1246606855; x=1247470855; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=1eTW/2Udd5mtLbTNElqgm0yrJ18Hj1Rd1Kdu22dIeco=; b=iYMDMi0QbvIEod3ecJxWmwDzKb3IkRI2yFBuZ/66YijQDdHGuO0tF4nngo v+Y3oUnhl3apuObUvqnh+HZhI1eneeaKXTcyNCq94VCtf92DzF8Pfws+KgNS boK99ryw7u; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:40:33 -0000 Currently we have an option for either human or machine generated message to be saved in syslog or "stick" to the bgp show command. How about if we add one more message type of having this pop-up on the console window ? During troubleshooting it may be very valuable to have this type of interactive IM chat with the peer I suppose to pass brief live msg. Cheers, R. From neil@domino.org Fri Jul 3 02:21:42 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 01F6328C1F2 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 02:21:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.188 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 bYbwhp6nyPSs for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 02:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from php.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AF628C1E6 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 02:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail2.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by php.domino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAD4A6ECE for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:21:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from 62.208.225.86 (proxying for 148.185.70.24) (SquirrelMail authenticated user neil) by webmail2.domino.org with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:21:52 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:21:52 +0100 (BST) From: "Neil J. McRae" To: idr@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: neil@domino.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:21:42 -0000 I'm strongly not in favour of this draft. I never thought I'd see the the day where BGP had an MTA baked into it! Does anyone who runs a decent sized network really think this is a good idea? With hundreds of peering sessions between peers and customers?! How are you going to check all of these? Then there is the potential for abuse "Call 1-800-ISP for our latest offer" anyone who thinks that this messaging system won't be open to any more abuse than all the other messaging system is kidding themselves on, I can see my marketing droids rubbing their hands in glee already. Its another thing for already overworked Network Operations Centres to monitor where the functionailty exists elsewhere. The draft would be better if it had a fixed number of error numbers and these were defined as part of the deaft but its still a pretty terrible direction in my view. I can see contracts already: Section 7 - Network Monitoring ------------------------------ $customer will send messages to $supplier using the BGP-Scholl draft. $supplier is required to act on these messages within _UNREASONABLE_TIMEFRAME_ $supplier is not permitted to use BGP-Scholl draft for any _USEFUL_MESSAGE_ to $customer. hmm, wonder when my transit contract is up for renewal! Its a steep and slipery slope in my view, I cringe thinking what vendors might end up doing with this. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Fri Jul 3 03:06:07 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 5FC473A6A1C for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:06:07 -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 SVoW3-kXnuIj for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from synchronicity.convergence.cx (synchronicity.convergence.cx [195.8.70.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEA43A68EA for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=tdcdf1) by synchronicity.convergence.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MMfbo-0007Bv-P6 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:03:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4DD75C.20800@uk.clara.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:03:08 +0100 From: David Freedman Organization: Claranet Limited User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:06:07 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > * Do you think that those big providers would even care to tell the > small few router guys over new advisory msg that they are going to be > down if they don't tell them today via any other means ? What is so > magic about this new way of communication ? Nothing new or magical, new $tool in $belt. > > * We have number of proposals in IETF for graceful BGP shutdown. Great > work, but why bother if we can just inject advisory msg saying "You guys > are going to be down soon .. be aware and prepared." See above. > > * I really wish someone would come with this idea years ago ... It would > save huge resources of development spend for features like > Non-Stop-Routing to make any ASBR/PE any potentially disruptive > operational activity 100% transparent to the peer. It would be so much > easier to implement this draft then just shoot an advisory message to > them and be done. See above. The stark reality we have to face is INFORM and SOFT NOTIFY being shot down whilst real operators are crying out for something actually useful and time-saving, especially when having to deal with customer/peer/provider oddness (which as we know these days can be time consuming enough). Rather than waste time arguing over if this is right or not (even for this WG) I suggest we refer to the charter in this case: "The Inter-Domain Routing Working Group is chartered to standardize and promote the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4 (BGP-4) [RFC 1771] capable of supporting policy based routing for TCP/IP internets." Since we are all in agreement at the very least that something needs to be done about the effects of NOTIFICATION messages ( I challenge somebody to refute this ) then I suggest we either : - - Support making the draft a WG item and work through its problems such to make an internet standard or - - Propose and agree an alternative which deals with our core concerns. So far we have done nothing but allow personal judgements and positions to cloud the discussion as can be seen historically on this issue, I suggest we get off our backsides. Dave. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpN11wACgkQtFWeqpgEZrKGKgCfcFNBZeDpo+1FGBAO1CIqxj0v 0l8AoJG6NI5fcrvAndVMN0iwtpPCjPG2 =lYm6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From will@harg.net Fri Jul 3 03:07:38 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 1CE253A6E50 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:07:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, 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 rQ-4reBiuVbs for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from microserf.flarg.net (microserf.flarg.net [195.177.252.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCEF3A68EA for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:07:37 -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 1MMfgD-00026r-00; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:07:41 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:07:41 +0100 From: Will Hargrave User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: neil@domino.org References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:07:38 -0000 Neil J. McRae wrote: > Does anyone who runs a decent sized network really think this is a good > idea? With hundreds of peering sessions between peers and customers?! I would think so, yes. Look at the list of supporters, many of whom run (have enable on) larger multi-country and multi-continent networks. Saying a proposal is invalid because proposer's network is tiny and he doesn't know what he's talking about is a poor way of making an argument. > Then there is the potential for abuse > "Call 1-800-ISP for our latest offer" > anyone who thinks that this messaging system won't be open to any more > abuse than all the other messaging system is kidding themselves on, I can > see my marketing droids rubbing their hands in glee already. This would be rather a pointless task. The fact you have a set of BGP sessions with someone means you have a _pre-existing_ contractual relationship with them; what is the point of sending short advertising messages to some NOC staff who aren't even likely to have purchasing authority? > Section 7 - Network Monitoring > ------------------------------ > $customer will send messages to $supplier using the BGP-Scholl draft. > $supplier is required to act on these messages within > _UNREASONABLE_TIMEFRAME_ $supplier is not permitted to use BGP-Scholl > draft for any _USEFUL_MESSAGE_ to $customer. You oppose a technology because your contract drafting and negotiation skills are poor? They could just as easily require you to send smoke signals. Or send it over ipsec-encrypted router-to-router syslog. Or anything else unreasonable. From pauldotwall@gmail.com Fri Jul 3 03:21:18 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 2BA1F28C1FF for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:21:18 -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 MpCSpB4AH8ZK for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E26228C133 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxe12 with SMTP id 12so3612678yxe.29 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:21:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZVrICTgqg6js0SYt+60cBS5pxjeLAp9sJYgE4WiqSiU=; b=OT6UcegfxDu4zkTjLO10Okft7tWppjyXM0GHbuuh/3F8Q+pv/7BfODdsIG34LIGwfi 0ahsyzEFM6NisZCfEGnHhJeJaV5rqB9jX02mai0lJz36s+GmmnG4Tay5s81hfEdXG6XM sQyIAdzef86dCYJJ8MOAigv+Kv97nCgVS2SEc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=im61Vb3qlVFpX0MDlGEef3JjNCq4sc51WAlf5k3dkcRvnIfHg/c5opO2qGndxsI3xY 6ZX0VzRNRBa9WsBfRGO2uO79AUflPyeFE8M2RXI11abFFo/nEvVXTOZcteP3IdBNnTuX oTg44871BWSgKLPwNG4IWOKSWooR/7Gou6Ku8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.32.201 with SMTP id e9mr1044679ibd.31.1246616498093; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:21:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A4DB604.1080306@cisco.com> References: <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <20090702202818.GA94841@gweep.net> <8CFFAF52-12A5-4908-93B5-631D8E3025D3@terrym.net> <20090703010258.A71683@gds.best.vwh.net> <4A4DB604.1080306@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:21:37 -0400 Message-ID: <620fd17c0907030321g67e1852fpc025ef8a32fe10ed@mail.gmail.com> From: Paul Wall To: raszuk@cisco.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:21:18 -0000 On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Currently we have an option for either human or machine generated message to > be saved in syslog or "stick" to the bgp show command. > > How about if we add one more message type of having this pop-up on the > console window ? > > During troubleshooting it may be very valuable to have this type of > interactive IM chat with the peer I suppose to pass brief live msg. How would that pop-up look in a VT100 window exactly? Would it be ncurses based? Given how many operators disable logging to the console as they type, this would probably be useless. Since you don't run an actual production network, I can see why you might not know this. With the mocking attitude shown in your email, its no wonder you got let go from Juniper. Hows Cisco working out this second time around Robert? Are you going to quit again if they don't make you a Distinguished Engineer? Cheers Drive Slow From raszuk@cisco.com Fri Jul 3 03:59:30 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 344133A6863 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:59:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, 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 v8MUbqqAbuRl for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:59:29 -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 343B33A67E9 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:59:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,341,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="336893566" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2009 10:59:52 +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 n63Axq8o006848; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:59:52 -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 n63AxqP8010136; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:59:52 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); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:59:52 -0700 Received: from [10.21.79.246] ([10.21.79.246]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 03:59:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4DE4A4.9080505@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:59:48 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Wall References: <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <20090702181906.GW51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618ABB2@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <20090702202818.GA94841@gweep.net> <8CFFAF52-12A5-4908-93B5-631D8E3025D3@terrym.net> <20090703010258.A71683@gds.best.vwh.net> <4A4DB604.1080306@cisco.com> <620fd17c0907030321g67e1852fpc025ef8a32fe10ed@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <620fd17c0907030321g67e1852fpc025ef8a32fe10ed@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2009 10:59:52.0039 (UTC) FILETIME=[63F13770:01C9FBCD] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1445; t=1246618792; x=1247482792; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=FbEIGeCN8QUO3hp/6rU4Bk7PlQPCnqXim6DCML/GhX8=; b=jHa5cXzKLr8W7OV/NHsexCEhEGKFvjsX992wuB9CBcQK5n6SK/jwzCUvqV TyUtvKvp3ZLzjETWrBYXf2u2kt03GEemrP7Fm96OrvOzEn9KkXkwvNONG/OM nGvl4+GWka; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:59:30 -0000 The proposal was actually serious and not mocking. But if someone has no concept on how to open two windows while performing troubleshooting with the peer instead of one I can see why the suggestion made may not have been understood. R. PS. Btw ... People asking personal questions are usually bright enough to do it offline and I am happy to answer any of them without spamming an IDR list. > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> Currently we have an option for either human or machine generated message to >> be saved in syslog or "stick" to the bgp show command. >> >> How about if we add one more message type of having this pop-up on the >> console window ? >> >> During troubleshooting it may be very valuable to have this type of >> interactive IM chat with the peer I suppose to pass brief live msg. > > How would that pop-up look in a VT100 window exactly? Would it be > ncurses based? Given how many operators disable logging to the console > as they type, this would probably be useless. Since you don't run an > actual production network, I can see why you might not know this. > > With the mocking attitude shown in your email, its no wonder you got > let go from Juniper. > > Hows Cisco working out this second time around Robert? Are you going > to quit again if they don't make you a Distinguished Engineer? > > Cheers > > Drive Slow > From iljitsch@muada.com Fri Jul 3 04:27:04 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 47C9628C282 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:27:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, 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 oE1RXdXGTYkd for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sequoia.muada.com (sequoia.muada.com [83.149.65.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0FA3A6A47 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from claw.it.uc3m.es (claw.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n63BR3KW024355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:27:04 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Inter-Domain Routing 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: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:26:44 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Subject: [Idr] IAC draft 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:27:04 -0000 Hi all, In San Francisco, we presented our IAC draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-van-beijnum-idr-iac-02 in the grow wg. Unfortunately, we didn't get much in the way of feedback. As such, we haven't updated the draft. We've been working on it for a year and a half, and after some iterations we think it's in good shape content-wise. So now it's time to make a decision on how to go forward. There are basically three options: 1. adopt the draft as an idr working group item 2. independently submit the draft to the RFC Editor for publication 3. stop this work and don't publish (Status would be most likely be experimental.) We would like feedback on which option you all think is appropriate, especially from those of you who are in the position to implement or not implement the mechanism. Thank you, Rolf & Iljitsch From neil@domino.org Fri Jul 3 05:15:36 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 BC94628C29E for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:15:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 dlJzn2Uxw714 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from php.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD84328C28D for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail2.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by php.domino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0CCA6FB8; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:15:57 +0100 (BST) Received: from 62.208.225.86 (proxying for 148.185.70.24) (SquirrelMail authenticated user neil) by webmail2.domino.org with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:15:57 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:15:57 +0100 (BST) From: "Neil J. McRae" To: "Will Hargrave" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: neil@domino.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:15:36 -0000 I thought this was IDR but in anycase: On Fri, July 3, 2009 11:07, Will Hargrave wrote: > I would think so, yes. Look at the list of supporters, many of whom run > (have enable on) larger multi-country and multi-continent networks. > Saying a proposal is invalid because proposer's network is tiny and he > doesn't know what he's talking about is a poor way of making an argument. Will if thats what you've implied them I take it you don't feel you know what you are talking about, you've clearly demonstrated it that's for sure. In my view this revision to the standard adds a tremendous amount of work for anyone who runs a large network with a large number of peers, both customers and suppliers, one would imagine that smaller organisations who run smaller networks with less resources would be equally burdened. I currently run a few networks (have enable as you put it!) for different companies of varied size from two elements in one cupboard to over twenty thousand elements on every continent on the planet, and in my view this adds a significant additional overhead of monitoring such messages, more so than the status quo, for a very limited and quite debatable benefit. Then there is the overhead of what happens if someone were to put a message that you couldn't understand or was confusing "LINK DOWN" - 'what does that mean?' > This would be rather a pointless task. The fact you have a set of BGP > sessions with someone means you have a _pre-existing_ contractual > relationship with them; what is the point of sending short advertising > messages to some NOC staff who aren't even likely to have purchasing > authority? I have pre-existing contractual relationships with many people and they still send me junk that I don't want- why would this be any different? > You oppose a technology because your contract drafting and negotiation > skills are poor? They could just as easily require you to send smoke > signals. Or send it over ipsec-encrypted router-to-router syslog. Or > anything else unreasonable. !?! This isn't technology though is it? Its a fudge of a routing protocol to do something that already exists in other messaging protocols that bad social and management capabilities force us to consider. If we want to have interdomain router to router operator communication as a technology then lets design something that does that but please lets not stuff this into technolgy that is used for network reachability. I'd call it an anti-technology. Whilst it won't change my view that this is a bad idea, I think that at the very least there should be no free form of text and that a list of "message/error codes" and their meaning be adopted a revised draft, here are a couple of ideas: CALLNOC (Call the NOC) PLANNEDWORKS (We have planned works) FAB or A-OK (Generic status for normal operating environment) etc... I welcome any proposal that makes operating networks simpler and enhances the service we provide to our customers but in this instance it occurs to me, reviewing the thread so far, that we've all jumped on the positive bandwagon without really thinking about all the causal side effects. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG From fweimer@bfk.de Fri Jul 3 05:25:55 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 1240D28C2B1 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:25:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.359, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 tFjp-aMRXhjF for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F1628C2A9 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1MMhtG-0008Vw-73; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:29:18 +0200 Received: by bfk.de with local id 1MMhqH-00009P-As; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:26:13 +0000 To: neil@domino.org References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> From: Florian Weimer Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:26:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> (Neil J. McRae's message of "Fri\, 3 Jul 2009 13\:15\:57 +0100 \(BST\)") Message-ID: <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:25:55 -0000 * Neil J. McRae: > In my view this revision to the standard adds a tremendous amount of work > for anyone who runs a large network with a large number of peers, both > customers and suppliers, one would imagine that smaller organisations who > run smaller networks with less resources would be equally burdened. I > currently run a few networks (have enable as you put it!) for different > companies of varied size from two elements in one cupboard to over twenty > thousand elements on every continent on the planet, and in my view this > adds a significant additional overhead of monitoring such messages, more > so than the status quo, for a very limited and quite debatable benefit. Why would you have to monitor this messages? Wouldn't the interface be more like this: # show ip bgp neighbor 192.0.2.1 [...] Last advisory message: "maximum prefix limit exceeded, retry in 10 minut= es" [...] # show ip bgp neighbor 192.0.2.1 messages Fri Jul 3 12:20:12 UTC 2009 approaching configured prefix limit Fri Jul 3 12:24:52 UTC 2009 maximum prefix limit exceeded, retry in 10 m= inutes # There could be an SNMP trap for this, but would be totally optional. This is not intended as a replacement for SMTP or IRC, I think. 8-) --=20 Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra=DFe 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From andy@nosignal.org Fri Jul 3 05:26:44 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 9BADA28C2B5 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:26:44 -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 t+cUh5eUZlpV for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chilli.nosignal.org (chilli.nosignal.org [91.194.68.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775AA28C2A9 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:26:43 -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 1MMhqm-0006NJ-2W; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:26:45 +0100 From: Andy Davidson To: neil@domino.org In-Reply-To: <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> Message-Id: 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: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:27:02 +0100 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:26:44 -0000 On 3 Jul 2009, at 13:15, Neil J. McRae wrote: > In my view this revision to the standard adds a tremendous amount of > work > for anyone who runs a large network with a large number of peers, It's capability based, so (for example) .... router bgp 1234 no bgp advisory-message ^Z Nothing changes. However, remember the incidents of Dec 10th last year which sparked much of this debate originally. Networks were disconnecting from the internet because all notifies had to be hard-notifies and cause a bgp session drop. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/ msg14345.html . A soft-notify message & discard would have led to a more stable internet that day (and when similar problems crop up in the future.) However, your network, your rules ! Andy From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Fri Jul 3 05:30:31 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 711DC28C2C7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:30:31 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 GUZTr3UqENMP for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from synchronicity.convergence.cx (synchronicity.convergence.cx [195.8.70.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022493A6F23 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=tdcdf1) by synchronicity.convergence.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MMhtN-0007Nd-WA for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:29:26 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4DF9A5.9070901@uk.clara.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:29:25 +0100 From: David Freedman Organization: Claranet LImited User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Idr] IAC draft 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:30:31 -0000 Just a quick question, understanding that you have revised the path selection statement in this version: "In the BGP route selection algorithm, the IAClocal is compared immediately following the comparison of the IGP cost." Can I just ask why not just before the IGP cost? what is the use of doing so afterward? I think this would be more of a useful tool if done beforehand, the "lowest IGP cost to next hop" is frequently a problematic metric to use because it depends on many factors, most importantly, where you are in the network (especially when you have sparsely placed RRs doing the selection on your behalf!) If as you say the implementer provides a feature to remove the IAC on ingress/egress (despite being off by default), is this really a big issue? Dave. Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Hi all, > > In San Francisco, we presented our IAC draft > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-van-beijnum-idr-iac-02 > > in the grow wg. Unfortunately, we didn't get much in the way of > feedback. As such, we haven't updated the draft. We've been working on > it for a year and a half, and after some iterations we think it's in > good shape content-wise. So now it's time to make a decision on how to > go forward. There are basically three options: > > 1. adopt the draft as an idr working group item > 2. independently submit the draft to the RFC Editor for publication > 3. stop this work and don't publish > > (Status would be most likely be experimental.) > > We would like feedback on which option you all think is appropriate, > especially from those of you who are in the position to implement or not > implement the mechanism. > > Thank you, > > Rolf & Iljitsch > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Fri Jul 3 05:33:31 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 717F228C2A9 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:33:31 -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 wg1Jz-kcyAV7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from synchronicity.convergence.cx (synchronicity.convergence.cx [195.8.70.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B297328C2A5 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=tdcdf1) by synchronicity.convergence.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MMhxf-0007OR-BW; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:33:51 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4DFAAF.4070504@uk.clara.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:33:51 +0100 From: David Freedman Organization: Claranet LImited User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Davidson References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:33:31 -0000 > It's capability based, so (for example) .... > > router bgp 1234 > no bgp advisory-message > ^Z and even (config-router)#no bgp advisory-message ? administrative disable administrative advisory operational disable operational advisory (this should be per neighbor as well btw) Dave. From raszuk@cisco.com Fri Jul 3 05:36:53 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 5483428C2AF for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, 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 vdaBu1QTWy2r for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3F528C2A3 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:34:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,341,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="209185452" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2009 12:35:14 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n63CZEHZ012390; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:35:14 -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 n63CZEqM009239; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:35:14 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); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:35:14 -0700 Received: from [10.21.79.246] ([10.21.79.246]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:35:13 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4DFAFE.6040302@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:35:10 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Davidson References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2009 12:35:14.0081 (UTC) FILETIME=[B68B8910:01C9FBDA] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1833; t=1246624514; x=1247488514; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=/Y5EU9Al6GHeIMucxqncHFx+pASutTDfxkA5tddtvvY=; b=J5eRIffwszkrCMIhNz9ltB57dv7i/jsyjXw+hZHL56eabL0/AiKwIAzVVk eVsoYnZ9xZhfWU4W7/pyZZQIhutgJZJcybIL0t3uusnJL2T05qgWuH+jdc2b /UaIBGIVtC; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:36:53 -0000 Hi Andy, > However, remember the incidents of Dec 10th last year which sparked > much > of this debate originally. Networks were disconnecting from the > internet because all notifies had to be hard-notifies and cause a bgp > session drop. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14345.html How would draft-scholl-idr-advisory help in this case ? > A soft-notify message & discard would have led to a more stable > internet that day (and when similar problems crop up in the future.) I think we all do support Soft-Notify or Inform draft like solution with pre-defined error codes. So why would we not adopt them first and see how much improvement this brings and what is missing ? Then after getting operation experience we could revisit the need and the best way to exchange free form text messages. Thx, R. > > On 3 Jul 2009, at 13:15, Neil J. McRae wrote: > >> In my view this revision to the standard adds a tremendous amount of work >> for anyone who runs a large network with a large number of peers, > > It's capability based, so (for example) .... > > router bgp 1234 > no bgp advisory-message > ^Z > > Nothing changes. > > > However, remember the incidents of Dec 10th last year which sparked much > of this debate originally. Networks were disconnecting from the > internet because all notifies had to be hard-notifies and cause a bgp > session drop. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14345.html . > A soft-notify message & discard would have led to a more stable internet > that day (and when similar problems crop up in the future.) > > However, your network, your rules ! > > Andy > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From neil@domino.org Fri Jul 3 05:37:12 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 6D89F28C285 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.305 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 cxGrOMzYZ0V6 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from php.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895EC28C1FD for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail2.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by php.domino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7018FA6FB8; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:37:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from 62.208.225.86 (proxying for 148.185.70.24) (SquirrelMail authenticated user neil) by webmail2.domino.org with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:37:26 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:37:26 +0100 (BST) From: "Neil J. McRae" To: "Florian Weimer" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: neil@domino.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:37:12 -0000 Florian, > Why would you have to monitor this messages? Wouldn't the interface > be more like this: Why would you have them if you didn't? > > # show ip bgp neighbor 192.0.2.1 ... > There could be an SNMP trap for this, but would be totally optional. > > This is not intended as a replacement for SMTP or IRC, I think. 8-) So if nobody is reading it or monitoring it - what value does it add? Why not change the max-prefix functionality to do all that stuff for you? ( I think it does on some vendor implementations now ). Please don't mis-understand me, I'm sure there are some use-cases for this that for some will be positive, from my point of view there are a number of side effects that don't make this worth while - but I re-iterate if you need router to router operator communication then I'd argue that we should do that outside of BGP (and IDR!). You could add more info into it for MPLS IPVPN NNI or other NNI situations. -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG From andy@nosignal.org Fri Jul 3 05:43:14 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 54DB228C290 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:43:14 -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=-0.001, 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 DiLv8mwFOByO for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chilli.nosignal.org (chilli.nosignal.org [91.194.68.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFE828C2A5 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:43:13 -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 1MMi6k-0007CD-9c; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:43:16 +0100 Message-Id: <41F9659C-E91A-48BF-AC89-7F582127901A@nosignal.org> From: Andy Davidson To: raszuk@cisco.com In-Reply-To: <4A4DFAFE.6040302@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--117643450 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:43:32 +0100 References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DFAFE.6040302@cisco.com> 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:43:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail-1--117643450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 3 Jul 2009, at 13:35, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > of this debate originally. Networks were disconnecting from the > > internet because all notifies had to be hard-notifies and cause a > bgp > > session drop. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/ > msg14345.html > How would draft-scholl-idr-advisory help in this case ? Our recommendation was to discard the update, but in tandem an automatic message could be generated to the upstream network informing them that a prefix with unclean attributes was transited. > I think we all do support Soft-Notify or Inform draft like solution > with pre-defined error codes. So why would we not adopt them first > and see how much improvement this brings and what is missing ? Then > after getting operation experience we could revisit the need and the > best way to exchange free form text messages. In my opinion, any proposal which does not incorporate the freetext ability of the Scholl draft is incomplete. Human derived annotations in my sh log will help debug inter-network communication issues more quickly and improve internet stability. Fact. Andy --Apple-Mail-1--117643450 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 3 Jul 2009, at = 13:35, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> = of this debate originally.  Networks were disconnecting from = the
> internet because all notifies had to be hard-notifies and = cause a bgp
> session drop.  http://www= .merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14345.html
How would = draft-scholl-idr-advisory help in this case = ?

Our recommendation was to = discard the update, but in tandem an automatic message could be = generated to the upstream network informing them that a prefix with = unclean attributes was transited.

I think we all do support Soft-Notify or Inform draft = like solution with pre-defined error codes. So why would we not adopt = them first and see how much improvement this brings and what is missing = ? Then after getting operation experience we could revisit the need and = the best way to exchange free form text = messages.

In my opinion, any = proposal which does not incorporate the freetext ability of the Scholl = draft is incomplete.

Human derived annotations = in my sh log will help debug inter-network communication issues more = quickly and improve internet stability. =  Fact.

Andy
= --Apple-Mail-1--117643450-- From fweimer@bfk.de Fri Jul 3 05:44:33 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 13BE83A6DE7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:44:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.942 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 iZ9uA+Zus6Fo for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CFD3A68C0 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1MMiB0-0002So-F4; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:47:38 +0200 Received: by bfk.de with local id 1MMi81-0004GZ-G4; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:44:33 +0000 To: neil@domino.org References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> From: Florian Weimer Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:44:33 +0000 In-Reply-To: <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> (Neil J. McRae's message of "Fri\, 3 Jul 2009 13\:37\:26 +0100 \(BST\)") Message-ID: <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:44:33 -0000 * Neil J. McRae: > Florian, > >> Why would you have to monitor this messages? Wouldn't the interface >> be more like this: > > Why would you have them if you didn't? To avoid phoning your peer when the session doesn't come up after some hick-up. Due to the way BGP session handling works, you have to reject incoming BGP connections for some time after you've received some update you didn't like. If you don't that, you potentially receive hundreds of thousands of prefixes again and again, in each session, until the problematic update is hit, the session is torn down, and the whole thing starts over again. > So if nobody is reading it or monitoring it - what value does it add? If your peer sends an RST to your TCP segment, how do you know today it's caused by previously exceeding the maximum prefix count limit? I think this is really an area where BGP could be improved. > Why not change the max-prefix functionality to do all that stuff for > you? ( I think it does on some vendor implementations now ). Certainly not, how would they do that? You'd have to generate an SMNP trap and send mail to your peer, but this seems unlikely. A concern could be that some operators won't like the information leak this functionality entails, but I would assume they are in the minority. If your peer can diagnose more BGP issues without real-time coordination, it's a win for both sides. --=20 Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra=DFe 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From iljitsch@muada.com Fri Jul 3 05:49:51 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 4E62C28C2C7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:49:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 V0Fx6cmyCVFm for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sequoia.muada.com (sequoia.muada.com [83.149.65.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFF33A68C0 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from claw.it.uc3m.es (claw.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n63CnBHJ025037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:49:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: David Freedman In-Reply-To: <4A4DF9A5.9070901@uk.clara.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: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:48:52 +0200 References: <4A4DF9A5.9070901@uk.clara.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] IAC draft 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:49:51 -0000 On 3 jul 2009, at 14:29, David Freedman wrote: > "In the BGP route selection algorithm, the IAClocal is compared > immediately following the comparison of the IGP cost." > Can I just ask why not just before the IGP cost? what is the use of > doing so afterward? In earlier versions we did this earlier, but then there is the issue that if you update the routers in an AS to look at the IAC, the traffic flow will be very different after this update. That makes the mechanism hard to deploy. This would also break the hot potato by default behavior in BGP, which is likely to be unpopular in large ASes. Last but not least, because the IGP cost is increasing, it avoids iBGP loops. If we overrule this in some routers (that have IAC) and not others (don't have/disabled IAC) we introduce the risk of iBGP loops. > I think this would be more of a useful tool if done beforehand, the > "lowest IGP cost to next hop" is frequently a problematic metric to > use > because it depends on many factors, most importantly, where you are in > the network (especially when you have sparsely placed RRs doing the > selection on your behalf!) I can imagine that route reflectors would have a "ignore IGP cost" switch, as the real IGP cost on the routers that use the RR's best path will be different anyway. Do you think that would solve your issues while maintaing iBGP-loopfreeness, or do you think it's necessary to go further? > If as you say the implementer provides a feature to remove the IAC > on ingress/egress (despite being off by default), is this really a big > issue? In general, I would like to be able to filter any and all attributes, especially unknown ones. It's just a matter of time until some clown adds unknown transitive path attributes to a route that make the BGP message 4090 bytes long so the router 3 hops down explodes after adding its AS number to the AS path. However, for the IAC it's important that the attribute is carried by ASes that don't support it themselves and/or have no need for it themselves so that ASes further away can make use of it. So off by default is essential. I hope that just the availability of the knob wouldn't be enough for people to use it indiscriminately. As such, I would rather see a general purpose filter that allows filtering any attribute, even unknown ones. Iljitsch From neil@domino.org Fri Jul 3 05:52:26 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 C1C9B3A6B2D for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:52:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.429 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 JxaRe--G-5gy for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from php.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86103A68C0 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail2.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by php.domino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0332A6FAD; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:52:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from 62.208.225.86 (proxying for 148.185.70.24) (SquirrelMail authenticated user neil) by webmail2.domino.org with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:52:48 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <34349.62.208.225.86.1246625568.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:52:48 +0100 (BST) From: "Neil J. McRae" To: "Andy Davidson" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: neil@domino.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:52:26 -0000 Andy, > router bgp 1234 > no bgp advisory-message > ^Z > > Nothing changes. Other than the side effects of this. But I appreciate that you don't have to use this tool. > However, remember the incidents of Dec 10th last year which sparked > much of this debate originally. Networks were disconnecting from the > internet because all notifies had to be hard-notifies and cause a bgp > session drop. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/ > msg14345.html . A soft-notify message & discard would have led to a > more stable internet that day (and when similar problems crop up in > the future.) I'm reading this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-scholl-idr-advisory-00 Andy, there is nothing in the standard that I read that talks about this or how it would help, or the exact same event that happened 1996 when an AS leaked a long AS Path. I am all for fixing that problem, but this leaves it open to implementation as to how it is used - please correct me if I'm mis-reading this. -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Fri Jul 3 05:56:10 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 8B6273A6E0D for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:56:10 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 Vwsc0-1UNliP for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from synchronicity.convergence.cx (synchronicity.convergence.cx [195.8.70.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDC93A68C0 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=tdcdf1) by synchronicity.convergence.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MMiJa-0007S5-Lt; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:56:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4DFFFE.3030505@uk.clara.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:56:30 +0100 From: David Freedman Organization: Claranet Limited User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum References: <4A4DF9A5.9070901@uk.clara.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] IAC draft 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:56:10 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 3 jul 2009, at 14:29, David Freedman wrote: > >> "In the BGP route selection algorithm, the IAClocal is compared >> immediately following the comparison of the IGP cost." > >> Can I just ask why not just before the IGP cost? what is the use of >> doing so afterward? > > In earlier versions we did this earlier, but then there is the issue > that if you update the routers in an AS to look at the IAC, the traffic > flow will be very different after this update. That makes the mechanism > hard to deploy. This would also break the hot potato by default behavior > in BGP, which is likely to be unpopular in large ASes. Understand, but usual trade-off with these enhancements between stability and usefulness. > > I can imagine that route reflectors would have a "ignore IGP cost" > switch, as the real IGP cost on the routers that use the RR's best path > will be different anyway. Do you think that would solve your issues > while maintaing iBGP-loopfreeness, or do you think it's necessary to go > further? RR behaviour is important, AIGP ( draft-ietf-idr-aigp.txt ) I believe has a similar problem ? > >> If as you say the implementer provides a feature to remove the IAC >> on ingress/egress (despite being off by default), is this really a big >> issue? > > In general, I would like to be able to filter any and all attributes, > especially unknown ones. It's just a matter of time until some clown > adds unknown transitive path attributes to a route that make the BGP > message 4090 bytes long so the router 3 hops down explodes after adding > its AS number to the AS path. > > However, for the IAC it's important that the attribute is carried by > ASes that don't support it themselves and/or have no need for it > themselves so that ASes further away can make use of it. So off by > default is essential. I hope that just the availability of the knob > wouldn't be enough for people to use it indiscriminately. As such, I > would rather see a general purpose filter that allows filtering any > attribute, even unknown ones. Agreed, this would be nice , draft-ietf-idr-optional-transitive is doing work towards error handling inside these Dave. > > Iljitsch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpN//sACgkQtFWeqpgEZrLohACfUFQkGEGUROX+4WBiNpBI/uL5 bX4AoIdfb25Sn4cRkpqst/6repWo3MBY =f/pW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From raszuk@cisco.com Fri Jul 3 05:56:59 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 CD34428C2C4 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:56:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, 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 K56xF2v3a3bA for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EC728C2B5 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:56:59 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,341,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="84399455" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2009 12:57:22 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n63CvMwM032229; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:57:22 -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 n63CvMvt022154; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:57:22 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); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:57:22 -0700 Received: from [10.21.79.246] ([10.21.79.246]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:57:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4E002D.4050707@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:57:17 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Florian Weimer References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> In-Reply-To: <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2009 12:57:21.0963 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE063FB0:01C9FBDD] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1507; t=1246625842; x=1247489842; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=PbnObxyFd9SX9dR0uvZoj0/iTK6NFzlCX4cHgkIHrLQ=; b=DYXSUV0RxNYELO0XFGg2w/09Fyql+sXRSdhl50W5WO3UWQh4w+xgBmLQ0l PbxjxywYQ9UkNxKpPaSgaVvms3lGOwt0HvJyjLofWkTl9fazn/ovdUVO7cT4 oCFcKxFAHE; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:56:59 -0000 Hi Florian, >>> Why would you have to monitor this messages? Wouldn't the interface >>> be more like this: >> >> Why would you have them if you didn't? > > To avoid phoning your peer when the session doesn't come up after some > hick-up. Due to the way BGP session handling works, you have to > reject incoming BGP connections for some time after you've received > some update you didn't like. If you don't that, you potentially > receive hundreds of thousands of prefixes again and again, in each > session, until the problematic update is hit, the session is torn > down, and the whole thing starts over again. Let's examine this use case perhaps a bit closer ... In the malformed update case you are right that the BGP behaviour is to reset the session. While doing such reset number of implementations I am familiar with log the malformed part of the update so you can know exactly what was the reason for the reset and perform corresponding action. I am not clear at what point you will expect or inject an advisory msg and what would such message contain ? Also advisory message as currently defined will not survive on it's own nor be sufficient to keep a session up. At least a pair of matching AFI/SAFI must be negotiated along with it. So can you just for better understanding of this use case describe sequence of events showing the place where advisory msg will be send by any peer for the malformed update session reset case ? Many thx, R. From neil@domino.org Fri Jul 3 05:58:28 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 A05FC28C2CA for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:58:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 AqAhkbu1Ay3r for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from php.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92C028C2C6 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail2.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by php.domino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045E6A6DE8; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:58:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from 62.208.225.86 (proxying for 148.185.70.24) (SquirrelMail authenticated user neil) by webmail2.domino.org with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:58:50 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <36563.62.208.225.86.1246625930.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: <41F9659C-E91A-48BF-AC89-7F582127901A@nosignal.org> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DFAFE.6040302@cisco.com> <41F9659C-E91A-48BF-AC89-7F582127901A@nosignal.org> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:58:50 +0100 (BST) From: "Neil J. McRae" To: "Andy Davidson" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: raszuk@cisco.com, idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: neil@domino.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:58:28 -0000 > In my opinion, any proposal which does not incorporate the freetext > ability of the Scholl draft is incomplete. Why? > Human derived annotations in my sh log will help debug inter-network > communication issues more quickly and improve internet stability. Fact. Andy - can you show me the data that backs this claim of fact up? :-) Because I don't think you've considered the side effects of how bad communication within this protocol may hinder Internet stability, and the previous poster says we won't be monitoring them so the network will have fallen over but we'll have a load of historical messages that nobody has read telling us what happened. Will be useful for network incident reports if nothing else! -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG From neil@domino.org Fri Jul 3 06:05:22 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 3B24728C2C6 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.528 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 p+kUj9yN6TXX for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from php.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59473A657C for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail2.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by php.domino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD56AA6DFB; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:04:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from 62.208.225.86 (proxying for 148.185.70.24) (SquirrelMail authenticated user neil) by webmail2.domino.org with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:04:43 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <40423.62.208.225.86.1246626283.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:04:43 +0100 (BST) From: "Neil J. McRae" To: "Florian Weimer" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: neil@domino.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:05:22 -0000 > To avoid phoning your peer when the session doesn't come up after some > hick-up. Due to the way BGP session handling works, you have to > reject incoming BGP connections for some time after you've received > some update you didn't like. If you don't that, you potentially > receive hundreds of thousands of prefixes again and again, in each > session, until the problematic update is hit, the session is torn > down, and the whole thing starts over again. So the outage has already happened, the session is down? I'd have thought it would be better to have monitored that this was an issue and deal with it accordingly. > If your peer sends an RST to your TCP segment, how do you know today > it's caused by previously exceeding the maximum prefix count limit? Usually because they've sent an email to our NOC telling us about it. > I think this is really an area where BGP could be improved. Its not BGP that you are improving! Its implementation around it. > If your peer can diagnose more BGP issues without real-time > coordination, it's a win for both sides. I agree that is a win-win and so far you've almost convinced me for one use case atleast after the fact you've had a failure. If it was some bogus NOTIFICATION, its already too late. -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG From fweimer@bfk.de Fri Jul 3 06:06:27 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 D05D028C283 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:06:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.991 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.258, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 F2XWw4DKWRki for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CCA28C1FD for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1MMiWT-0005iX-4c; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:09:49 +0200 Received: by bfk.de with local id 1MMiTU-0002qI-4R; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:06:44 +0000 To: raszuk@cisco.com References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4A4E002D.4050707@cisco.com> From: Florian Weimer Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:06:44 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4A4E002D.4050707@cisco.com> (Robert Raszuk's message of "Fri\, 03 Jul 2009 05\:57\:17 -0700") Message-ID: <82vdm9ncez.fsf@mid.bfk.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:06:27 -0000 * Robert Raszuk: > In the malformed update case you are right that the BGP behaviour is > to reset the session. While doing such reset number of implementations > I am familiar with log the malformed part of the update so you can > know exactly what was the reason for the reset and perform > corresponding action. This log entry is only visible to the peer which dropped the connection. > I am not clear at what point you will expect or inject an advisory msg > and what would such message contain ? In case of malformed updates, it's generally a shared issue, i.e. both parties are potentially at fault. For the maximum-prefix case, it's usually the fault of the peer who sends to many updates. In this case, the log messsage which explains things is logged by one side only. The guilty party has to guess the cause, or obtain the log message by phoning/emailing the other operator. This process can be improved, and draft-scholl-idr-advisory is one way to achieve that. > Also advisory message as currently defined will not survive on it's > own nor be sufficient to keep a session up. At least a pair of > matching AFI/SAFI must be negotiated along with it. So can you just > for better understanding of this use case describe sequence of events > showing the place where advisory msg will be send by any peer for the > malformed update session reset case ? I didn't bring up the malformed update case, and it's not in the draft. I personally think the maximum-prefix use case is justification enough for this draft. In general, malformed updates are shared issue, with blame difficult to attribute. It's also difficult to guess how to rectify the issue (in general, there's no "no send broken-updates" command), so a shared debugging session is probably in order anyway. A malformed update should be extremely rare. If the RFCs were correct and correctly implemented, it's basically a "can't happen" scenario. It's not reasonable to expect that one party is to debug such an issue unilaterally. --=20 Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra=DFe 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From fweimer@bfk.de Fri Jul 3 06:14:34 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 1F3DA3A69E7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:14:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 nbtHnScxE3fB for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B7A3A6C8E for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1MMie0-0006fx-JV; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:17:36 +0200 Received: by bfk.de with local id 1MMib1-0007tR-H1; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:14:31 +0000 To: neil@domino.org References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <40423.62.208.225.86.1246626283.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> From: Florian Weimer Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:14:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: <40423.62.208.225.86.1246626283.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> (Neil J. McRae's message of "Fri\, 3 Jul 2009 14\:04\:43 +0100 \(BST\)") Message-ID: <82r5wxnc20.fsf@mid.bfk.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:14:34 -0000 * Neil J. McRae: >> To avoid phoning your peer when the session doesn't come up after some >> hick-up. Due to the way BGP session handling works, you have to >> reject incoming BGP connections for some time after you've received >> some update you didn't like. If you don't that, you potentially >> receive hundreds of thousands of prefixes again and again, in each >> session, until the problematic update is hit, the session is torn >> down, and the whole thing starts over again. > > So the outage has already happened, the session is down? I'd have thought > it would be better to have monitored that this was an issue and deal with > it accordingly. No, it's a free-text field. You can't really use it for this purpose. It's also not intended for pre-announcing maintenance windows. You could perhaps send an advisory message immediately before taking down a session. But as a said, this shouldn't be used as an IRC replacement. >> If your peer sends an RST to your TCP segment, how do you know today >> it's caused by previously exceeding the maximum prefix count limit? > > Usually because they've sent an email to our NOC telling us about it. Ideally, yes, but often it's pull and not push. The proposed protocol change gives you more direct access to this information. >> I think this is really an area where BGP could be improved. > > Its not BGP that you are improving! Its implementation around it. I don't think it's sense to make this distinction. After all, it is a protocol change we're talking about. --=20 Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra=DFe 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From crimson@sidehack.sat.gweep.net Fri Jul 3 07:34:46 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 382953A6CE9 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 evDdG2Caioyg for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sidehack.sat.gweep.net (sidehack.sat.gweep.net [204.145.148.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EDE6628C16D for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16993 invoked by uid 524); 3 Jul 2009 14:34:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:34:19 -0400 From: Joe Provo To: idr@ietf.org Message-ID: <20090703143419.GA13744@gweep.net> References: <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <34349.62.208.225.86.1246625568.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <34349.62.208.225.86.1246625568.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-PGP-Key: http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt X-Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." Organization: RSUC - NT? No Thanks! X-Do-Not-Email-Here: nonsense@spammers.can-bite-me.com Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:34:46 -0000 On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:52:48PM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: [snip, attribution stripped by poster, was andyd] > > However, remember the incidents of Dec 10th last year which sparked > > much of this debate originally. Networks were disconnecting from the > > internet because all notifies had to be hard-notifies and cause a bgp > > session drop. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/ > > msg14345.html . A soft-notify message & discard would have led to a > > more stable internet that day (and when similar problems crop up in > > the future.) > > I'm reading this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-scholl-idr-advisory-00 > > Andy, there is nothing in the standard that I read that talks about this > or how it would help, or the exact same event that happened 1996 when an > AS leaked a long AS Path. I am all for fixing that problem, but this > leaves it open to implementation as to how it is used - please correct me > if I'm mis-reading this. Please use context of handling in conjunction with the existing WG item, draft-ietf-idr-optional-transitive. Given optional-transitive allowing a peer to drop the garbage instead of reset the session, notify allows one to automagically tell the garbage-emitter "prefix FOO was malformed and ignored: ". Cheer, Joe PS - to those on IDR without fingers in routers, a reminder that one needn't go back to 1996 or even the 2008 incident Andy referenced. There are horribly broken speakers emitting refuse on a regular basis, offhand I think I blinked and missed whoever did one in June but May had at least the Cairo AfNOG meeting revisiting the AS32 issue... -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE From rjs@eng.gxn.net Fri Jul 3 07:37:36 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 525E13A6BED for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 oS4QIp6fDQb3 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2001:b98:201:101::10:cafe]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C213A682D for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rjs by cappuccino.rob.sh with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MMjrI-00012Z-6e for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:35:24 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:35:24 +0100 From: Rob Shakir To: idr Message-ID: <20090703143524.GK2140@cappuccino.rob.sh> References: <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> <4A4DD75C.20800@uk.clara.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A4DD75C.20800@uk.clara.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:37:36 -0000 On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 11:03:08AM +0100, David Freedman wrote: > The stark reality we have to face is INFORM and SOFT NOTIFY being shot > down whilst real operators are crying out for something actually useful > and time-saving, especially when having to deal with > customer/peer/provider oddness > (which as we know these days can be time consuming enough). >From reading this thread, I think what Dave says above really needs to be noted. We have no mechanism at the moment to send a NOTIFICATION message that is non-fatal - whilst we can argue about the fact that there are other mechanisms of sending human-generated messages, I believe there is value in having some means by which I can receive a message from my peer that is akin to a soft notification. I believe Dave already sent a message in previous discussions of this draft that gave a summary of the differences, and per-case advantages of either the SOFT NOTIFY draft, or ADVISORY, and their similarities. With a TLV (or similar) based ADVISORY, then we could achieve both requirements. >From my own (operational) point of view, I believe there is definite value in the free-text message proposed in this draft. Kind regards, Rob -- Rob Shakir Network Development Engineer GX Networks/Vialtus Solutions ddi: +44208 587 6077 mob: +44797 155 4098 pgp: 0xc07e6deb nic-hdl: RJS-RIPE This email is subject to: http//www.vialtus.com/disclaimer.html From raszuk@cisco.com Fri Jul 3 07:45:01 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 7021E3A69E5 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, 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 toxyML17j2ke for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:45:00 -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 8A4503A6E58 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:45:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,342,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="336997870" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2009 14:45:24 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n63EjO7k015073; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:45:24 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n63EjO3N008600; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:45:24 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); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:45:23 -0700 Received: from [10.21.79.246] ([10.21.79.246]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:45:23 -0700 Message-ID: <4A4E197F.8090403@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:45:19 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Florian Weimer References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4A4E002D.4050707@cisco.com> <82vdm9ncez.fsf@mid.bfk.de> In-Reply-To: <82vdm9ncez.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2009 14:45:23.0312 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5359F00:01C9FBEC] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=628; t=1246632324; x=1247496324; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; 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]=20draft-scholl-idr-advisory |Sender:=20; bh=spQrf5OML+tLuGgYDGQr4YH8MlUh2ld7WMcafW/ljSo=; b=aDbfLarVxBYSYkH0xbAukTgA6doKVheVf+jupRu9p5TkPcGdqy5E0JAD7u MygkeMtZZv2DkvoQIKAB3cvQZd21w8vHUHKYdwiIO9ZH/wQKbDLJQy+Ojq+I BHWkW5gs5s80Y4EDZ24OKtFH9+LkCkNiR5v38L6sXWalHENZEDAFg=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:45:01 -0000 Hi Florian, > I personally think the maximum-prefix use case is > justification enough for this draft. I don't agree. Max-prefix warning and error can be very easy addressed programmatically by either of those two below drafts: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nalawade-bgp-inform-02 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nalawade-bgp-soft-notify-00 With draft-scholl used to address this case you will be required to write your own event script, deploy on each router and the probability that each ISP will come with different syntax to convey such information to the peer is guaranteed. Many thx, R. From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Fri Jul 3 07:56:13 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 A5DB93A6BED for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:56:13 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 WUc1kNQK5Y7I for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from synchronicity.convergence.cx (synchronicity.convergence.cx [195.8.70.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CB828C1F8 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=tdcdf1) by synchronicity.convergence.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MMk9n-0007cz-8k for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:54:31 +0100 Message-ID: <4A4E1BA6.6080801@uk.clara.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:54:30 +0100 From: David Freedman Organization: Claranet LImited User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4A4E002D.4050707@cisco.com> <82vdm9ncez.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4A4E197F.8090403@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4A4E197F.8090403@cisco.com> 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:56:13 -0000 > Max-prefix warning and error can be very easy addressed programmatically > by either of those two below drafts: > Yes, the key word being "drafts" here, since we don't have either of these two being suggested for WG agenda I recommend we stick with what is. From john@jlc.net Fri Jul 3 09:40:54 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 1B52B3A6E0D for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.392, 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 Add-+21viSCQ for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7973A685B for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 7357333C73; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:39:38 -0400 From: John Leslie To: Andy Davidson Message-ID: <20090703163938.GG15652@verdi> References: <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:40:54 -0000 Andy Davidson wrote: > > However, remember the incidents of Dec 10th last year which sparked > much of this debate originally. Networks were disconnecting from the > internet because all notifies had to be hard-notifies and cause a bgp > session drop. > > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14345.html " " Strict RFC 4893 (4-byte ASN support) BGP4 implementations are vulnerable " to a session reset by distant (not directly connected) ASes. It would certainly be nice to have better communication about the details leading to a notification. I don't think the current version of draft-scholl-idr-advisory gets us there. I don't really have a horse in this race -- I can certainly deal with megabytes of logged information if it comes to that -- but I'd much rather do idr-advisory in a manner which _can_ pass useful information when NOTIFY is happening. That would require (at a minimum) being able to queue the ADVISORY before the NOTIFY and (while refusing any further UPDATEs) keeping the TCP connection up "long enough" to give it a reasonable chance of being received. " This vulnerability is a feature of the standard, and unless immediate " action is taken an increasingly significant number of networks will be " open to attack. (I'm curious what "immediate actions" _have_ been taken...) http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14454.html recommends ] ] There are two cases to consider when an invalid AS4_PATH is received: ] (1) A path to the prefix is not already known from that neighbour. ] (2) A path to the prefix has already been learnt from that neighbour; ] ] In case (1) we recommend that the BGP speaker should discard the UPDATE ] and log the fact. The log entry should include the received AS_PATH and ] AS4_PATH to aid in debugging. ] ] In case (2) we recommend that the BGP speaker should treat the UPDATE as ] a withdrawal of existing path to the prefix. As per case (1) a log entry ] should be raised to indicate that this has occurred. These sound to me like programming-level issues, not something that can be done "immediately" via configuration changes. > A soft-notify message & discard would have led to a more stable internet > that day (and when similar problems crop up in the future.) +1 on the "when" !!! In fact, I'd be _very_ surprised if we don't have similar problems crop up over other details of 4-byte ASNs. -- John Leslie From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 10:20:34 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 412B23A6B81 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:20:34 -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 K5K3rXOUMwyx for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636F028C2E7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63HIPr7061297; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:18:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031718.n63HIPr7061297@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: Christopher Morrow From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:18:38 EDT." <75cb24520907012118u437ff651g2618408763af5df4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:18:25 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:20:34 -0000 In message <75cb24520907012118u437ff651g2618408763af5df4@mail.gmail.com> Christopher Morrow writes: > > > 'used to' share PGP keys, I've not seen anyone at a large 'ISP' use > > I'd note that when you left ANS/UUNET there was very likely almost no > one using PGP for email communications between peers (aside from > personal emails)... certainly the NOC ticketting system at UUNET > didn't understand PGP email, nor prioritizing that over other email it > received. > > -Chris At that time there was an operator's security list that only accepted PGP signed mail within a specific keyring. You could email the NOC or a clueful person at another ISP if you knew one. Most of the clueful people used procmail or equiv and many prioritized PGP signed email that was authenticated in a specific keyring. I'm not sure if the ANS or UUNET NOC also prioritized PGP signed email. Spam definitely hurt and maybe ended the use of a noc@ email as a way to report trouble. The phone certainly doesn't replace it, and the web mazes aren't much better. There were also the NOCs or "support centers" that told their peers that "you are not in our customer list so go away". As you mentioned, that is a social problem. Anyway, I agreed - if its needed, go for it. Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 10:33:29 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 8EE4628C2EE for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:33:29 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 6UTI09DoxCZ0 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69013A6CAA for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63HX5Zh061509; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:33:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031733.n63HX5Zh061509@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:31:43 EDT." <20090702103143.GA15217@gweep.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:33:05 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:33:29 -0000 In message <20090702103143.GA15217@gweep.net> Joe Provo writes: > > > If this really is needed, its a sad commentary on the operator > > community. But if so, go for it. > > I think you mispelled "commoditization of Internet service". [...] > > Cheers, > > Joe Very careless spelling error on my part. Failure to distinguish between consumer mass market customer, small businnes customer, and peer may be the problem. Large customer seems to get prioritization that sometimes peer might not, since large business customer (or government) brings in larger dollars and some organizations fail to see the importance of coordination with peers. This probably isn't the venue to discuss the social problems that lead to the draft's requirement. I buy the argument. Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 10:40:21 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 05EDC3A688D for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:40:21 -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 BHi-RaBt6Ldy for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BC03A6E78 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63Hdu0o061561; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:39:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031739.n63Hdu0o061561@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: "John G. Scudder" From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:09:44 EDT." <61CFA984-8716-4FD3-A2D1-CC4D27E8803B@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:39:56 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:40:21 -0000 In message <61CFA984-8716-4FD3-A2D1-CC4D27E8803B@juniper.net> "John G. Scudder" writes: > > On Jul 1, 2009, at 11:48 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > Would it be wise to explicitly limit the scope of these messages to > > the immediate peer and its logging so that the global internet isn't > > bloated with advisory messages that are only of interest to a pair of > > providers somewhere? I didn't see where that limit was recommended. > > It's a new message type and has no semantics defined other than being > logged by the receiving party, so it's implicitly scoped. For it NOT > to be locally scoped, some sort of propagation semantics would have to > be defined. > > --John (with co-author hat on and co-chair hat off) New message type that just gets logged. Nothing in the update. Like CEASE but with message and has no effect on the session. OK I get it. Thanks. Curtis From ras@gerbil.cluepon.net Fri Jul 3 10:48:19 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 34B073A680A for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:48:19 -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 V4lN1Nqt7B5R for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gerbil.cluepon.net (e-gerbil.net [69.31.1.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55833A6BD7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:48:17 -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 n63HmGwB019160; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:48:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras@gerbil.cluepon.net) Received: (from ras@localhost) by gerbil.cluepon.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n63HmFgT019159; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:48:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:48:15 -0500 From: Richard A Steenbergen To: Florian Weimer Message-ID: <20090703174815.GC51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> References: <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <4A4DD86D.4010707@harg.net> <17760.62.208.225.86.1246623357.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82ab3mneai.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <27453.62.208.225.86.1246624646.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82zlbmlyvi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <40423.62.208.225.86.1246626283.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <82r5wxnc20.fsf@mid.bfk.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <82r5wxnc20.fsf@mid.bfk.de> 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:48:19 -0000 On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:14:31PM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote: > It's also not intended for pre-announcing maintenance windows. You > could perhaps send an advisory message immediately before taking down > a session. But as a said, this shouldn't be used as an IRC > replacement. Actually, that is precisely what this draft was intended to do (well, one primary use case among many at any rate). Let me spell out a typical day to day NOC scenerio, since there seems to be a fair amount of confusion of how and why this draft would be beneficial. Event: I'm going to be reloading one of my peering edge routers with 60 BGP sessions, connected to 60 different networks, to upgrade my router code. 1. Days before the event, I send out a maintenance notice to my peers. 2. Someone's NOC receives this notice, reads it, parses it, and then either puts the ticket in some kind of pending queue or notes the event on some kind of internal maintenance calendar. 3. Days later, it's finally time to do the maintenance. I clear the BGP sessions, and reload my router. 4. I start to find out how badly step 2 failed. It turns out that of the 60 NOCs who received this notification, no fewer than 10% (and usually more) either failed to correctly parse the e-mail, failed to record it properly internally, couldn't find it when they searched their ticketing system for what ever reason, etc. 5. These NOCs (now with completely different shifts staffed by completely different people from when that first e-mail came in) now have a big red PEER DOWN popping up on their monitoring system, and so they do their jobs and either start sending e-mails asking about the down session, or they pick up the phone and call my NOC. 6. Now my noc has to ask my eng staff whats going on, and start telling everyone who is calling that it will be back up shortly, start closing tickets, etc. Note all of this was for a PLANNED event where an e-mail was sent. Now why don't we further extend this scenerio to what is an even more realistic event, my $routeros just blew up in some weird and unpleasant way and I was forced to do an emergency upgrade or reload. Now the number of calls and e-mails doubles or triples. And I can't fault these peers for calling when they see an event, because honestly at least 25% of our peers (even some big international carriers) are so disorganized that they wouldn't know about a legitimate failure on their own if nobody told them. Now lets try that again, but with the ADVISORY draft. 3. Days later, it's time to do the maintenance. I send out an advisory message to my peers indicating that I am performing a maintenance activity under ticket #ABC12345, and that I expect the session to be back up within 10 minutes. 4. The advisory message POPs up in syslog and in the monitoring systems of my peers, followed a few seconds later by the peer down message. 5. Those 60 NOCs now have immediate access to the information about this session, why it went down, what ticket # I'm tracking this under on my side, and information about how long they should wait before assuming there is a problem. Even if they are a small network without fancy monitoring systems, someone is going to login to the router and type show log | match x.x.x.x and see the message. 6. The router comes back up, and a dozen confused calls and e-mails are avoided. If not, they know a) what happened, b) that we know about it, and c) what ticket its referenced under if they do have to call. Why does this work? Think about the problems with e-mail only notifications: * First you have to maintain up to date contact information for your peers, which in and of itself is not an easy task. Some networks out there have over 1000 peers (easily obtained if you have an open peering policy at a few european IXs). * The possession of someone's noc e-mail address implies nothing about a relationship between the sender and the recepient. That is why 50% of the noc tickets that come in are spam, 45% are things which are not appropriate for the NOC queue, and only 5% are valid tickets. * Humans (especially noc monkeys :P) are very fallible when it comes to process. They will misparse the e-mail, misplace the ticket, mis- record the event, mistype the search key, etc. The odds of being able to successfully correlate an event at 2am with an e-mail 3 days ago are not good in a busy noc with a lot of shift changes and a lot of tickets. * E-mail isn't real time. In the example of the emergency reload, there is no way we would even have time to draft an e-mail before reloading let alone have it reach the right people on the other side. Now think about the advantages of the ADVISORY draft. * No external contact database or other information is required. I'm not saying that this should replace your well maintained contact database, but it does provide for a way to deliver a message about this BGP session with no external information required. I still receive e-mails from the NOCs of tier 1 networks sent to companies that went away 3 acquisitions and 5 years ago, despite numerous notifications that they update their contact information, so don't tell me this is never a problem. * The existance of the BGP session itself has inherent authentication and message routing properties. I immediately know for every message that a) it is coming from someone who I am directly connected to and thus have a relationship with and b) which session it is about, without any human parsing. This is already lightyears ahead of an e-mail or phone call. * Because of the inherent authentication mechanism, I don't have to worry about swapping PGP keys or any other nonsense to maintain this avenue of communication. Ask any network operator how much grief the MD5 scare was, how many e-mails were sent trying to coordinate keys, how many peers lost their keys, etc. It turns out that even an activity as trivial as swapping a password is not trivial when you have to do it 1000 times between completely different organizations across the world who may not even speak the same languages. * This draft allows for real-time delivery of messages, which means things like emergency reloads can now be communicated with sufficient speed. Without devolving this into bikeshed painting territory any more than it already is, I think it is clear that there are legitimate needs and uses for a free-form text message, and that this message is just as much a part of the legitimate signaling mechanisms of BGP as the fixed-form notification messages. This draft doesn't replace the need for a soft notification mechanism or network-to-network communication via e-mail, but it is one more tool that operators can take advantage of to help run their networks. If the overwhelming support we've seen from network operators so far doesn't prove the value they see in this proposal, I don't know what will. -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 11:15:35 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 C434E28C2DE for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:15:35 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 K1ju-ULvv7-k for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC54A3A69E0 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63IFAKF098043; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:15:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031815.n63IFAKF098043@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: "John G. Scudder" From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:02:34 EDT." Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:15:10 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: Yakov Rekhter , idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] Thank you Yakov! X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:15:35 -0000 In message "John G. Scudder" writes: > > On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Russ White wrote: > > Me, too. Sorry to see you go, Yakov. > > And so am I! I'll do my best with what someone described to me as > "huge shoes to fill". > > Adding my thanks for Yakov's years of service, > > --John John, - I think you are technically qualified for the co-chair job but you'll never be able to do the funny accent. Yakov, - Thanks for all that you've contributed for over two decades in so many areas, of which co-chairing IDR and co-authoring BGP is just one. Cheers, Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 11:26:05 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 D1FA03A6CE9 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:26:05 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 5kg-cYEJRhJb for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8647D28C335 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63IO6OZ007619; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:24:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031824.n63IO6OZ007619@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: vijay gill From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:08:22 PDT." <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:24:06 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: Robert Raszuk , idr@ietf.org, Dorian Kim Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:26:05 -0000 In message <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> vijay gill writes: [trimmed] > > > > I'm most likely not the best advocate for this draft since I'm somewhat lukewarm > > about its benefit given the cost. However, allow me to bring up and analogy > > with all the usual caveats inherent in anaologies. CLNS host info doesn't by > > itself amount to much, but has shown itself to be of many time saving operational > > uses. So to that extent, some facilities for having a limited free form text > > to syslog command tied to BGP may be of more use than we can think of at the moment. > > I disagree strongly with the operational reality of this draft. It may > be useful for some folks who have the time to actually sync up and > talk with another person on the far side of an _already_ operational > BGP session. That corner case is not common enough to actually make > this useful in my opinion. The real utility might be if the session > was not established and in that case we fall back to OOB communication > anyway. > > /vijay > > > > -dorian Vijay, If you can get past the open exchange then a message can be sent and logged before the first update and with a "btw- I think the reason this session is flapping all day is ...". If the IP address is wrong or authentication fails or the session does not establish at all for some other reason, then its a no go. It does sound to me to be useful. Since it can't pollute anything but the syslogs, it also seems harmless. Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 11:31:14 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 5C2973A63CB for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:31:14 -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 RqNNdTNfU0zS for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF833A6CAA for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63IUnWa014604; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:30:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031830.n63IUnWa014604@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: David Freedman From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:44:21 BST." <48736F35.5030300@uk.clara.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:30:49 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] RFC5065 - Section 5.3 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:31:14 -0000 In message <48736F35.5030300@uk.clara.net> David Freedman writes: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 No one uses PGP anymore? :-) Oops wrong thread. > Admittedly I'm a little late for this now that draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis > is now an RFC, but I'm unclear as to why Section 5.3 (3) states: > > 3) When comparing routes using AS_PATH length, CONFED_SEQUENCE and > CONFED_SETs SHOULD NOT be counted. > > I would rather have said: > > When comparing routes using AS_PATH length, an implementation MAY > provide the ability to count CONFED_SEQUENCE and CONFED_SET. > > > Looking back through the archives, I see Ilya Varlashkin has commented > on this previously : > > (http://www.nabble.com/BGP-best-path-selection-in-confederations-(draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis-06.txt)-td11081109.html#a11081109) > > > I too run a network where each subconfederation has a discrete IGP and I > do not wish them to interact, an implementation which provides the > ability to count CONFED_SEQUENCE / CONFED_SET and use this for route > comparison would be extremely useful, I do not understand why the > author(s) have used "SHOULD NOT" in this case, it seems silly. > > Can somebody explain? > > Regards, > > David Freedman David, MAY implies that it makes little difference so do it either way. SHOULD NOT does not prohibit entirely just indicates which way the knob default should be set and implies that anyone tweaking this knob should know what they are doing. MUST NOT would prohibit the knob (in theory). Seems to me that SHOULD NOT was the right pick. Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 12:07:47 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 6E2F33A6C33 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:07:47 -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 bgYuOeO1lyOz for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965933A6883 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63J6asg051977; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:06:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031906.n63J6asg051977@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: raszuk@cisco.com From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:08:08 PDT." <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:06:36 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org, Dorian Kim , vijay gill Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:07:47 -0000 In message <4A4D21B8.10804@cisco.com> Robert Raszuk writes: [trim] > > * I really wish someone would come with this idea years ago ... It would > save huge resources of development spend for features like > Non-Stop-Routing to make any ASBR/PE any potentially disruptive > operational activity 100% transparent to the peer. It would be so much > easier to implement this draft then just shoot an advisory message to > them and be done. > > Cheers, > R. Robert, The message would more likely be of the form At [some time] we plan to do [X] which will inherently test the non-stop routing capability of our router and since we have less than 100% confidence in our router vendor's implementation of [some feature, maybe related to X, maybe NSR], we are notifying you of our intended action, just in case... :-) That would not remove the requirement for graceful restart, etc. Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 12:43:17 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 EFCC33A6939 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:43:17 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 LfrBj2qioAwb for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200603A67AA for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63JgopT090094; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:42:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031942.n63JgopT090094@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: raszuk@cisco.com From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:40:52 PDT." <4A4DB604.1080306@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:42:50 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:43:18 -0000 In message <4A4DB604.1080306@cisco.com> Robert Raszuk writes: > > > Currently we have an option for either human or machine generated > message to be saved in syslog or "stick" to the bgp show command. > > How about if we add one more message type of having this pop-up on the > console window ? > > During troubleshooting it may be very valuable to have this type of > interactive IM chat with the peer I suppose to pass brief live msg. > > Cheers, > R. Routers have consoles? How about we sent it to the card punch too? :-) Seriously the issue is that for a BGP peering to exist there is generally an agreement that the peer by reachable in a timely fashion, but this agreement is not enforceable. The phone or email contact information is often useless. The one thing that can be guarenteed is that there is a BGP session and if that is the only means to get a message across it might be better than nothing. Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 12:45:45 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 BD4413A6866 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:45:45 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 jm+xDMVuiZQD for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E284D3A67AA for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63JjCLK092634; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:45:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031945.n63JjCLK092634@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: neil@domino.org From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:21:52 BST." <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:45:12 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:45:45 -0000 In message <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> "Neil J. McRae" writes: > > How are you going to check all of these? Hint: automate! Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 12:53:42 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 2A69C3A6923 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:53:42 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 wnc4Pgt2iYns for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F133A6B26 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63Jr9nC001064; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:53:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907031953.n63Jr9nC001064@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: Paul Wall From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:21:37 EDT." <620fd17c0907030321g67e1852fpc025ef8a32fe10ed@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:53:09 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: raszuk@cisco.com, idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:53:42 -0000 In message <620fd17c0907030321g67e1852fpc025ef8a32fe10ed@mail.gmail.com> Paul Wall writes: [deleted, see archives] I believe that personal attacks are prohibited on IETF mailing lists. [but I'm too lazy to reread the Tao or other docs to try to find it.] Curtis From ras@gerbil.cluepon.net Fri Jul 3 13:06:31 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 F3D003A6A5C for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:06:30 -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 fEYlfiaJ9pur for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gerbil.cluepon.net (e-gerbil.net [69.31.1.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E9C3A6B26 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:06:29 -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 n63K6oXO020051; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:06:50 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras@gerbil.cluepon.net) Received: (from ras@localhost) by gerbil.cluepon.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n63K6oi0020050; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:06:50 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:06:50 -0500 From: Richard A Steenbergen To: Curtis Villamizar Message-ID: <20090703200649.GD51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> References: <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> <200907031945.n63JjCLK092634@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907031945.n63JjCLK092634@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:06:31 -0000 On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:45:12PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> > "Neil J. McRae" writes: > > > > How are you going to check all of these? > > Hint: automate! I don't think anyone would recommend you use an advisory message to send communication you definitely want the other side to read or respond to, e-mail is far more appropriate for this task. The point of an advisory message is to convey some information which would be useful to figuring out a problem if and when the other side goes to look, the same way someone might go look at what NOTIFICATIONs were received when a peer goes down. -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 13:23:32 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 4476B28C36E for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] 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 qRPOwuoEYevc for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5204428C367 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63KN7oO032692; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:23:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907032023.n63KN7oO032692@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: Idr@ietf.org From: Curtis Villamizar Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:23:07 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Subject: [Idr] ADVISORY != SOFT_NOTIFY X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:23:32 -0000 ADVISORY != SOFT_NOTIFY SOFT_NOTIFY would replace NOTIFICATION in soft circumstances and drop a prefix rather than a session. SOFT_NOTIFY applied to AS_CONFED_SEQ in AS4_PATH, *could* solve the problem in http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14345.html , while ADVISORY would only provide additional hints. Am I mistaken? Curtis From curtis@occnc.com Fri Jul 3 13:45:50 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 68DD63A68AC for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, 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 lJFjHPFgEfbF for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E933A6E7E for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n63KhxwK054914; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:43:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907032043.n63KhxwK054914@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: Richard A Steenbergen From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:06:50 CDT." <20090703200649.GD51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:43:59 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:45:50 -0000 In message <20090703200649.GD51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> Richard A Steenbergen writes: > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:45:12PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > > > In message <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> > > "Neil J. McRae" writes: > > > > > > How are you going to check all of these? > > > > Hint: automate! > > I don't think anyone would recommend you use an advisory message to send > communication you definitely want the other side to read or respond to, > e-mail is far more appropriate for this task. The point of an advisory > message is to convey some information which would be useful to figuring > out a problem if and when the other side goes to look, the same way > someone might go look at what NOTIFICATIONs were received when a peer > goes down. > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras Maybe a one word hint was too terse? :-) In a past life we automated collection of information from every conceivable source and ran it through a small set of (mostly perl) programs at the NOC. The automated part of the analysis ranged from looking for patterns in access to ports that we didn't use (to find network security scans), to finding near full disks or machines that had started paging (yes, our routers had disks and would page to disk and get slow rather than outright fail). The outcome would be a note to the NOC that a security scan was occurring, that disk needed cleanup, that a machine might need a RAM upgrade, etc. Today, the patterns to look for and actions to take would differ. Adding a message to the NOC that some subset of routers received a recent ADVISORY would not be hard. Curtis From ras@gerbil.cluepon.net Fri Jul 3 14:25:51 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 AFA133A6E8D for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:25:51 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 nTBc0L0oY17s for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gerbil.cluepon.net (e-gerbil.net [69.31.1.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14B93A69E7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:25:50 -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 n63LQDAG020609; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:26:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras@gerbil.cluepon.net) Received: (from ras@localhost) by gerbil.cluepon.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n63LQDuC020608; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:26:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:26:13 -0500 From: Richard A Steenbergen To: Curtis Villamizar Message-ID: <20090703212613.GH51443@gerbil.cluepon.net> References: <200907032023.n63KN7oO032692@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907032023.n63KN7oO032692@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: Idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] ADVISORY != SOFT_NOTIFY 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:25:52 -0000 On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 04:23:07PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > ADVISORY != SOFT_NOTIFY > > SOFT_NOTIFY would replace NOTIFICATION in soft circumstances and drop > a prefix rather than a session. SOFT_NOTIFY applied to AS_CONFED_SEQ > in AS4_PATH, *could* solve the problem in > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14345.html , while > ADVISORY would only provide additional hints. > > Am I mistaken? There was a proposal to integrated ADVISORY into SOFT_NOTIFY, where the advisory message would be a free-form text type along with many other fixed-form types. I don't think you would want to restrict SOFT_NOTIFY to handling bad attributes/prefixes only, but that would clearly be one type of message you would send. The only advantage I could see in the integration (vs two separate drafts) would be if you did multi-part SOFT_NOTIFY messages, with both a fixed-form and free-form text message in response to the same event. I'm not sure this is a big winner or worth all the trouble however. The disadvantage I see is that ADVISORY "sticky" messages (similar to a SONET path trace for the BGP session) don't map into SOFT_NOTIFY space at all. Based on that, I would say they shouldn't be integrated. -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) From kristian@spritelink.net Fri Jul 3 15:25:11 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 DBB333A6C32 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:25:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.988 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611] 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 PN5DryQ1nL3H for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ninja.SpriteLink.NET (Ninja.SpriteLink.NET [195.182.5.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771ED3A6B5B for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ninja.SpriteLink.NET (kll@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ninja.SpriteLink.NET (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n63MOtmA083134; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:24:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kristian@spritelink.net) Received: (from kll@localhost) by Ninja.SpriteLink.NET (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n63MOnFx083133; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:24:49 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kristian@spritelink.net) X-Authentication-Warning: Ninja.SpriteLink.NET: kll set sender to kristian@spritelink.net using -f Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:24:49 +0200 From: Kristian Larsson To: "Neil J. McRae" Message-ID: <20090703222449.GH66062@spritelink.se> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> <21ef2c1c0907021108i75f70ee8we558325d4b8de22f@mail.gmail.com> <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4090.62.208.225.86.1246612912.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:25:12 -0000 On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:21:52AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Does anyone who runs a decent sized network really think this is a good > idea? With hundreds of peering sessions between peers and customers?! I represent AS1257 in this matter. We run a network covering the better parts of Europe as well as the US. We have in the hundreds of peers and we support this proposal. > How are you going to check all of these? Automation. I imagine that when we receive a peer down alarm, we would collect the last ADVISORY message and display this together with the peer down alarm in the NOCs alarm system so that they may get a better view of what happened. > Then there is the potential for abuse > > "Call 1-800-ISP for our latest offer" If that's the message our peers wants to send us before their peer go down, then so be it, the NOC would probably laugh at it. > anyone who thinks that this messaging system won't be open to any more > abuse than all the other messaging system is kidding themselves on, I can > see my marketing droids rubbing their hands in glee already. Your marketing droids have enable on your routers? People have scraped peeringdb.com in the past to sell transit, it usually ends up with some sales dude getting beaten up by the engineers at the same company. I don't see this very different - you could do it, but you would get ignored. Receiving such a message, I would probably consider depeering ;) > Its another thing for already overworked Network Operations Centres to > monitor where the functionailty exists elsewhere. At least in our environment, we would ignore the messages most of the time and really only pay attention to them when another event has occured (typically a peer down). > > The draft would be better if it had a fixed number of error numbers and > these were defined as part of the deaft but its still a pretty terrible > direction in my view. No it wouldn't, free-text for the win :) > I can see contracts already: > > Section 7 - Network Monitoring > ------------------------------ > $customer will send messages to $supplier using the BGP-Scholl draft. > $supplier is required to act on these messages within > _UNREASONABLE_TIMEFRAME_ $supplier is not permitted to use BGP-Scholl > draft for any _USEFUL_MESSAGE_ to $customer. If you let customers dictate your contracts you have another problem. Kind regards, Kristian. -- Kristian Larsson KLL-RIPE +46 704 910401 kll@spritelink.net From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Fri Jul 3 16:30:50 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 07A413A6C63 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 AESmMX0OUKyT for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from staff01.mail.eu.clara.net (staff01.mail.eu.clara.net [80.168.65.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14C53A67EB for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eth3.gs-fw1.router.uk.clara.net ([80.168.52.244]:3103 helo=srvukfe02.claranet.local) by staff01.mail.eu.clara.net (staff01.mail.eu.clara.net [80.168.65.54]:25) with esmtp id 1MMsAj-00061c-4s (Exim 4.69) (return-path ); Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:28:01 +0000 Received: from EXVS01.claranet.local ([192.168.201.205]) by srvukfe02.claranet.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:28:01 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9FC35.E78121E1" Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:28:00 +0100 Message-ID: <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B0D7D3F@EXVS01.claranet.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] RFC5065 - Section 5.3 Thread-Index: Acn8DIHbkPud9U1rReuGBbeVnHaKrAAJAAD+ References: <200907031830.n63IUnWa014604@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> From: "David Freedman" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2009 23:28:01.0373 (UTC) FILETIME=[E81200D0:01C9FC35] X-BorderScout-Spam: 0.00 X-BorderScout-Virus: clean Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] RFC5065 - Section 5.3 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:30:50 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9FC35.E78121E1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >David, > >MAY implies that it makes little difference so do it either way. >SHOULD NOT does not prohibit entirely just indicates which way the >knob default should be set and implies that anyone tweaking this knob >should know what they are doing. MUST NOT would prohibit the knob (in >theory). Seems to me that SHOULD NOT was the right pick. Agree that "MAY" opens you up for interop issues if vendors pick = different defaults, but I don't believe this behaviour was standardised prior to RFC5065 was = it? Since you are not supposed to propagate the confed information to = neighbours outside your confederation, this is hardly a harmful thing to have actually made = the default=20 (subconfed counting), no?, perhaps we should have said "SHOULD", it = would have been=20 far more useful to have done so.=20 Dave. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9FC35.E78121E1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Idr] RFC5065 - Section 5.3

>David,
>
>MAY implies that it makes little difference so do it either way.
>SHOULD NOT does not prohibit entirely just indicates which way = the
>knob default should be set and implies that anyone tweaking this = knob
>should know what they are doing.  MUST NOT would prohibit the = knob (in
>theory).  Seems to me that SHOULD NOT was the right pick.

Agree that "MAY" opens you up for interop issues if vendors = pick different defaults,
but I don't believe this behaviour was standardised prior to RFC5065 was = it?

Since you are not supposed to propagate the confed information to = neighbours outside
your confederation, this is hardly a harmful thing to have actually made = the default
(subconfed counting), no?, perhaps we should have said = "SHOULD", it would have been
far more useful to have done so.

Dave.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9FC35.E78121E1-- From neil@domino.org Sat Jul 4 02:16:30 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 6A7703A67EB for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 02:16:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.805, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 ePgU8cmiuy7N for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 02:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from php.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41883A6403 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 02:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail2.domino.org (jail0080.vps.exonetric.net [82.138.248.198]) by php.domino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E2AA6DFB; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:15:31 +0100 (BST) Received: from 217.169.55.80 (SquirrelMail authenticated user neil) by webmail2.domino.org with HTTP; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:15:31 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <41390.217.169.55.80.1246698931.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> In-Reply-To: <200907031945.n63JjCLK092634@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> References: <200907031945.n63JjCLK092634@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:15:31 +0100 (BST) From: "Neil J. McRae" To: curtis@occnc.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: neil@domino.org List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:16:30 -0000 On Fri, July 3, 2009 20:45, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > Hint: automate! Reply: More cost! And how do you automate something usefully based on a free text field? -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Sat Jul 4 03:36:39 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 8E44A3A6916 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 Gc9mqF3MBGPh for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 03:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from staff01.mail.eu.clara.net (staff01.mail.eu.clara.net [80.168.65.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643C33A679C for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 03:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eth3.gs-fw1.router.uk.clara.net ([80.168.52.244]:3287 helo=srvukfe02.claranet.local) by staff01.mail.eu.clara.net (staff01.mail.eu.clara.net [80.168.65.54]:25) with esmtp id 1MN2Wo-0005l5-5Z (Exim 4.69) for idr@ietf.org (return-path ); Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:31:30 +0000 Received: from EXVS01.claranet.local ([192.168.201.205]) by srvukfe02.claranet.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:31:30 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9FC92.97B8C742" Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:31:29 +0100 Message-ID: <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B0D7D40@EXVS01.claranet.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IAC draft Thread-Index: Acn8kpexAcaiBBpMSu6xrIbzwIa6sA== From: "David Freedman" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2009 10:31:30.0721 (UTC) FILETIME=[984A7110:01C9FC92] X-BorderScout-Spam: 0.00 X-BorderScout-Virus: clean Subject: Re: [Idr] IAC draft 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, 04 Jul 2009 10:36:39 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9FC92.97B8C742 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also, I note that the draft does not adopt any special approach when = confronted with=20 a confederated (RFC5065) setup, since it is popular to deploy a common = IGP within a=20 confederation these days (say for TE reasons), the = inter-subconfederation eBGP relationships=20 would strip the computed IAClocal, would you be happy with this outcome? = surely it would be a good thing (tm) to have a single IAClocal=20 for the confederation? (like med/localpref are shared currently) Dave. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering=20 Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9FC92.97B8C742 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: IAC draft

Also, I note that the draft does not adopt any special = approach when confronted with
a confederated (RFC5065) setup, since it is popular to deploy a common = IGP within a
confederation these days (say for TE reasons), the = inter-subconfederation eBGP relationships
would strip the computed IAClocal, would you be happy with this = outcome?

surely it would be a good thing (tm) to have a single IAClocal
for the confederation? (like med/localpref are shared currently)

Dave.

------------------------------------------------
David Freedman
Group Network Engineering
Claranet Limited
http://www.clara.net

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9FC92.97B8C742-- From curtis@occnc.com Sat Jul 4 12:12:12 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 93CC63A69E1 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:12:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, 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 2mga3ooAy23D for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058F03A67F0 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n64JBiVI051344; Sat, 4 Jul 2009 15:11:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907041911.n64JBiVI051344@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: neil@domino.org From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:15:31 BST." <41390.217.169.55.80.1246698931.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:11:44 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:12:12 -0000 In message <41390.217.169.55.80.1246698931.squirrel@webmail2.domino.org> "Neil J. McRae" writes: > > On Fri, July 3, 2009 20:45, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > Hint: automate! > > Reply: More cost! Run your network any way you want. We found it cheaper to have programs do the first level probing and problem detection. > And how do you automate something usefully based on a free text field? You just notify the NOC that a message has been received on a particular router (just once until the notice is cleared indicating someone looked at it, or periodically if no one clears it). Then you let a person read the actual message. Otherwise a person has to poll the routers and that IMO would be a lot less effective and a lot more expensive. I'm not suggesting that you launch an AI research project. Curtis From Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net Mon Jul 6 03:21:50 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 27D8828C25B for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:21:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 1GXAhUl3Bc0l for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softy.de.easynet.net (softy.de.easynet.net [194.163.250.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104FD3A69E2 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe01kgham.de.easynet.net ([194.163.250.17] helo=fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net) by softy.de.easynet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MNlJh-0007qQ-JW for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:20:57 +0200 Received: from ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net ([10.43.3.3]) by fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:20:57 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:20:57 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: combining drafts SOFT-NOTIFY, INFORM and ADVISORY thread-index: Acn+I3MODICuCqCrS8SAa3A0jBkVIA== From: "Ilya Varlashkin" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2009 10:20:57.0870 (UTC) FILETIME=[73E88AE0:01C9FE23] Subject: [Idr] combining drafts SOFT-NOTIFY, INFORM and 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: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:21:50 -0000 Hi, operating mid-sized network that spans the globe I see good value in having at hands additional info to why certain BGP-related events took place. All three drafts (SOFT-NOTIFY, INFORM and ADVISORY) can provide this info and in my opinion should be considered for further refinement within IDR. In my experience more often than not NOC folk try to determine "did this session go down because something broke on our side? on peer side? did peer close session because of planned or emergency work? or was is inconsistent configuration between two sides?". Based on the same experience if broken session was result of human intervention I doubt that involved person would write significantly more useful info than automatically generated message could provide. Yes they could write "taking this session down because we need to replace line card", but they're likely just to write "emergency work" if anything at all. On the other hand, router's software could generate predefined message and send it to peer if user action will result in session reset or shut down. This would be both easier for the side performing work (they don't need to type much), and benefical for the peer (they know at least state change was due to user action on the other side). Additional free-text message would be welcome, but not mandatory. SOFT-NOTIFY draft provides good foundation for implementing automation part of what's described above. Integrating ADVISORY draft functionality into SOFT-NOTIFY (via new or existing TLV) could provide additional info to operators. For example, if I shutdown session(s) before planned/emergency work on the router by issuing "set neighbor X shutdown', then router can send SOFT-NOTIFY message to the peer "session shut down on operator request" (probably in standard encoded rather than free-text form). If I'm nice operator I could provide additional info to peer by using optional argument to the above command: "set neighbor X shutdown 'emergency work. restore eta 15min". This messages could then be retreived by peer's NOC when they do 'show bgp neighbor X' and will save both sides effort of handling emails to clarify situation. Even if the operator doesn't provide extra free-form info, the auto-generated by router message would already indicate to NOC that session was brought down intentionally. Details of whether to provide such functionality as sticky messages could be worked out during draft refinement process. I would support a draft that adds above described functionality but only as integrated solution rather than separate drafts for automated router-generated notifications and human-written text. Additionally, I think free-form text should not be limited to ASCII-only english letters but instead should either use unicode or be at least 8-bit transparent (based on previous experience in non-latin environment). Could we, idr wg, not merge all three mentioned drafts into single one for combined functionality?=20 Cheers, iLya From Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net Mon Jul 6 05:59:45 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 73AA228C229 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:59:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, 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 7B2hkz3dHeHc for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softy.de.easynet.net (softy.de.easynet.net [194.163.250.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB3528C19E for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe01kgham.de.easynet.net ([194.163.250.17] helo=fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net) by softy.de.easynet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MNnn7-0000w5-0L for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:59:29 +0200 Received: from ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net ([10.43.3.3]) by fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:59:28 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:59:28 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-idr-aigp-00 thread-index: Acn+OZh7BqvQdHNWTpOLKfkQKqxF1g== From: "Ilya Varlashkin" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2009 12:59:28.0990 (UTC) FILETIME=[98FA47E0:01C9FE39] Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-aigp-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, 06 Jul 2009 12:59:45 -0000 Hi, I've read through draft-ietf-idr-aigp-00 and find the idea quite good. In fact it was long on my wish-list since as necessary tool to optimise routing within BGP confederation. There are couple concerns, however, regarding details of proposed functionality. First, section 4.1 sugests to evaluate AIGP before LOCAL-PREF. Considering that AIGP is close in ist nature to IGP cost, it seems more natural to evaluate it right where IGP cost is evaluated. One possibility could be: if a route has AIGP attribute with value X, then add X to IGP cost of the NEXT_HOP and use result as tie-breaker instead of plain IGP cost. It should be noted that if BGP implementation has knob to consider length of CONFED_SEQUENCE and it's turned on, then length of CONFED_SEQUENCE will take precedence, so if operator wants to use AIGP they should consider turning off CONFED_SEQUENCE length knob. Second, section 3.3.1 explicitly forbids adding AIGP to routes learned from outside of AS. From operational prospective this rips off most of the benefits that AIGP could provide. If a route learned by two confederation member-AS are then injected into third member-AS, it would be benifical to choose best of them based on AIGP value but the draft won't allow this. Seems like serious drawback. Comments from authors on the above would be appreciated. Kind regards, iLya From pierre.francois@uclouvain.be Mon Jul 6 06:29:22 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 0828328C179 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:29:22 -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 YrY55QZAqmso for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtpout.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.77]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499303A6CBA for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nukuhiva.local (4.119-245-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be [81.245.119.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pifrancois@smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28D2CEB69A for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:17:43 +0200 (CEST) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 28D2CEB69A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1246886263; bh=ZzEIJdEmfiTcK1Zx+Yyc2Fmh6/yjZ3gGm3gwp01n+uQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=CnWq33yzj1b+wzDKbjE6VCxvOQ6O3VVUL6u6KnLpGIuk9rdo2M13HFkmI3i91d7HO zK0mPtHQYNvgdHlWpWeAaBFLkB4/7f/6IpBK0IN0j9fhhKzHRmZrJCjsC6em7bfMe3 jCIgetLKoYeVTEzlflLDyiRcIJtvzDbmGH+z3wF0= Message-ID: <4A51F976.2050909@uclouvain.be> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:17:42 +0200 From: Pierre Francois User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050508080303000206010607" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.2 at smtp-2.sipr-dc.ucl.ac.be X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated, X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 28D2CEB69A.00000 X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-SGSI-From: pierre.francois@uclouvain.be X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No Subject: [Idr] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-francois-limited-scope-specifics-00.txt] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: pierre.francois@uclouvain.be List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:29:22 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050508080303000206010607 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-francois-limited-scope-specifics-00.txt Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:00:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Threat to BGP Policies : limited-scope more specific prefix injection Author(s) : P. Francois, B. Quoitin Filename : draft-francois-limited-scope-specifics-00.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2009-07-06 This draft describes potential threats to the respect of Internet routing policies by the routers of one ISP, that are due to a restricted propagation of more specific BGP prefixes by its neighboring domains. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francois-limited-scope-specifics-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --------------050508080303000206010607 Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-francois-limited-scope-specifics-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-francois-limited-scope-specifics-00.txt" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-07-06045524.I-D@ietf.org> --------------050508080303000206010607 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Attached Message Part" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Attached Message Part" _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --------------050508080303000206010607-- From pierre.francois@uclouvain.be Mon Jul 6 06:34:48 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 5CEF028C1D5 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:34:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.343, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_OBFU_SUB_DOUBLEV=0.686] 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 h6tv-LANtLdl for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp4.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtpout.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.77]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F7128C0E3 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nukuhiva.local (4.119-245-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be [81.245.119.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pifrancois@smtp4.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp4.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DDBFF1FC8 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:13:11 +0200 (CEST) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 smtp4.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 0DDBFF1FC8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1246885991; bh=OSrgmIwHdJnxkHNmGLWfedjFafnfo5YNzfpvmv55Ia0=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=SGcByjLxaXlS0X2YpWMz687BHHhTmnaYI8iBvQtUbppO4U59ttVrCjcApnWnp7mkf oKalzNWbRrcwmq+jgAD3fHV2MaBIJWEDwbbfJT9W7lB4iVE2Cda/NZf1/gDeqZZpOM Ya6h0XE7aqpTCCBGr3zLWb/7GRK2MGSzgyd/sFh8= Message-ID: <4A51F85E.7070701@uclouvain.be> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:13:02 +0200 From: Pierre Francois User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050005060709000100030004" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.2 at smtp-4.sipr-dc.ucl.ac.be X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated, X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 0DDBFF1FC8.00000 X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-SGSI-From: pierre.francois@uclouvain.be X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No Subject: [Idr] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-vvds-add-paths-analysis-00.txt] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: pierre.francois@uclouvain.be List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:34:48 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050005060709000100030004 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-vvds-add-paths-analysis-00.txt Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Analysis of paths selection modes for Add-Paths Author(s) : V. Van den Schrieck, P. Francois Filename : draft-vvds-add-paths-analysis-00.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2009-07-06 This document is aimed at discussing the various alternatives for the selection of the paths that are to be advertised with add-paths. The goal is to summarize the properties of those selection methods depending on which application they are used for. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vvds-add-paths-analysis-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --------------050005060709000100030004 Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-vvds-add-paths-analysis-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-vvds-add-paths-analysis-00.txt" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-07-06055632.I-D@ietf.org> --------------050005060709000100030004 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Attached Message Part" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Attached Message Part" _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --------------050005060709000100030004-- From raszuk@cisco.com Mon Jul 6 07:25:48 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 A438E28C271 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, 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 S58HfYthDv-A for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:25:47 -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 8BCC528C191 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,356,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="338395390" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2009 14:24:57 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n66EOvHP016156 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:24:57 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n66EOvOH003631 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:24:57 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:24:57 -0700 Received: from [10.21.73.15] ([10.21.73.15]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:24:56 -0700 Message-ID: <4A520934.705@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:24:52 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2009 14:24:57.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[89A1A340:01C9FE45] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1279; t=1246890297; x=1247754297; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=raszuk@cisco.com; z=From:=20Robert=20Raszuk=20 |Subject:=20New=20Version=20Notification=20for=20=20draft-r aszuk-diverse-bgp-path-dist-00 |Sender:=20; bh=V4lvZuNKadwUrUw5jm68rWNmgvTXskvvenfj6+QYq8Y=; b=Z4dWWC5QFdx/DaqLxVUVzTWV+7TKP1oucIdnbIVWesf/UdGTATPI/hCw5z YmRZeCBgBIvT8WRyLj7E30nkG9aOFGRrlKgct+O58SSIDOONjo0k1MO/zf0v igBTd9y031Ck7uhn8xfKq0ONsGI8KQL0XJ7PELpZxowj8266dP/GY=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Idr] New Version Notification for draft-raszuk-diverse-bgp-path-dist-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: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:25:48 -0000 FYI .. A new version of I-D, draft-raszuk-diverse-bgp-path-dist-00.txt has been successfuly submitted and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-raszuk-diverse-bgp-path-dist Revision: 00 Title: Distribution of diverse BGP paths. Creation_date: 2009-07-05 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 20 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raszuk-diverse-bgp-path-dist-00.txt Abstract: The BGP4 protocol specifies the selection and propagation of a single best path for each prefix. As defined today BGP has no mechanisms to distribute paths other then best path between it's speakers. This behaviour results in number of disadvantages for new applications and services. This document presents an alternative mechanism for solving the problem based on the concept of parallel route reflector planes. It also compares existing solutions and proposed ideas that enable distribution of more paths than just the best path. This proposal does not specify any changes to the BGP protocol definition. It does not require upgrades to provider edge or core routers nor does it need network wide upgrades. The authors believe that the GROW WG would be the best place for this work. From uttaro@att.com Mon Jul 6 11:35:53 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 486773A6B46 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 7iZZNm6QkkYN for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F059F3A6B9E for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:35:51 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: uttaro@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1246905269!34838583!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 15776 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2009 18:34:29 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-10.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Jul 2009 18:34:29 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n66IYT7K031921; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:34:29 -0400 Received: from misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [144.155.43.107]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n66IYQxj031898; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:34:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:34:26 -0400 Message-ID: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B99B@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-aigp-00 Thread-Index: Acn+OZh7BqvQdHNWTpOLKfkQKqxF1gAKnTWQ References: From: "UTTARO, JAMES, ATTLABS" To: "Ilya Varlashkin" , Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-aigp-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, 06 Jul 2009 18:35:53 -0000 Comments In-Line=20 Jim Uttaro=20 -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ilya Varlashkin Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:59 AM To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-aigp-00 Hi, I've read through draft-ietf-idr-aigp-00 and find the idea quite good. In fact it was long on my wish-list since as necessary tool to optimise routing within BGP confederation. There are couple concerns, however, regarding details of proposed functionality. First, section 4.1 sugests to evaluate AIGP before LOCAL-PREF. Considering that AIGP is close in ist nature to IGP cost, it seems more natural to evaluate it right where IGP cost is evaluated. One possibility could be: if a route has AIGP attribute with value X, then add X to IGP cost of the NEXT_HOP and use result as tie-breaker instead of plain IGP cost. It should be noted that if BGP implementation has knob to consider length of CONFED_SEQUENCE and it's turned on, then length of CONFED_SEQUENCE will take precedence, so if operator wants to use AIGP they should consider turning off CONFED_SEQUENCE length knob. > A route with the AIGP attribute must be evaluated in a consistent manner across an AS or multiple AS domains. If the AIGP attribute is being used, and each BGP speaker could override AIGP via LP or some other metric ( AS-PATH, MED etc... ) this would lead to a great deal of uncertainty about how any one route could be evaluated. High probability that the same route will not be evaluated the same way by each speaker that has agreed to use AIGP. Just to circle back. A method for scaling an IGP that contains thousands of PEs is to divorce the signaling of PE LBs within and across AS domains from the underlying IGP. The PE LBs are propagated using BGP w/label ( 3107 ). The rationale ( my need ;) ) for AIGP is to allow for an "IGP" metric ( latency ) to be propagated with a route that is being exchanged between multiple AS domains or within an AS Domain where BGP is used as the signaling protocol. In today's world there are various methods to exchange this info between two AS domains but not three, four etc... None of the current methods meet the requirements. Second, section 3.3.1 explicitly forbids adding AIGP to routes learned from outside of AS. From operational prospective this rips off most of the benefits that AIGP could provide. If a route learned by two confederation member-AS are then injected into third member-AS, it would be benifical to choose best of them based on AIGP value but the draft won't allow this. Seems like serious drawback. > This comes back to the single administrative authority. AIGP is not appropriate where two administrative authorities have not agreed across both AS domains to use AIGP. Are you describing two distinct admin authorities? If not, why would'nt the AIGP attribute be originated to begin with in the original confederation member AS domains? Comments from authors on the above would be appreciated. Kind regards, iLya _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From john@jlc.net Mon Jul 6 11:52:36 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 7E3F528C14F for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:52:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.246 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.353, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 R-U51CvwGVNJ for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F8328C1EC for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id BF56D33C65; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:50:39 -0400 From: John Leslie To: Ilya Varlashkin Message-ID: <20090706185039.GJ15652@verdi> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] combining drafts SOFT-NOTIFY, INFORM and 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: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:52:36 -0000 Ilya Varlashkin wrote: > > operating mid-sized network that spans the globe I see good value in > having at hands additional info to why certain BGP-related events took > place. All three drafts (SOFT-NOTIFY, INFORM and ADVISORY) can provide > this info and in my opinion should be considered for further refinement > within IDR. I tend to agree... > In my experience more often than not NOC folk try to determine "did this > session go down because something broke on our side? An excellent question... > on peer side? did peer close session because of planned or emergency > work? or was is inconsistent configuration between two sides?". et cetera... > Based on the same experience if broken session was result of human > intervention I doubt that involved person would write significantly more > useful info than automatically generated message could provide. Yes they > could write "taking this session down because we need to replace line > card", but they're likely just to write "emergency work" if anything at > all. Hard to say for sure... I'd like to give them the opportunity. > On the other hand, router's software could generate predefined message > and send it to peer if user action will result in session reset or shut > down. This would be both easier for the side performing work (they don't > need to type much), and benefical for the peer (they know at least state > change was due to user action on the other side). Additional free-text > message would be welcome, but not mandatory. Agreed. > SOFT-NOTIFY draft provides good foundation for implementing automation > part of what's described above. Unfortunately, SOFT-NOTIFY opens several cans of worms by keeping a session open which currently would be terminated -- meaning that many a NOC crew will ignore the problem. :^( > Integrating ADVISORY draft functionality into SOFT-NOTIFY (via new or > existing TLV) could provide additional info to operators. I don't think that is the intent of the folks clamoring for ADVISORY. > For example, if I shutdown session(s) before planned/emergency work on > the router by issuing "set neighbor X shutdown', then router can send > SOFT-NOTIFY message to the peer "session shut down on operator request" > (probably in standard encoded rather than free-text form). That function seems useful, whether or not it involves SOFT-NOTIFY. > If I'm nice operator I could provide additional info to peer by using > optional argument to the above command: "set neighbor X shutdown > 'emergency work. restore eta 15min". An implementation detail, of course, but useful, IMHO. > I would support a draft that adds above described functionality but > only as integrated solution rather than separate drafts for automated > router-generated notifications and human-written text. I see substantial benefit to a functionality which enables both automated status-change codes and "human-readable free text". > Additionally, I think free-form text should not be limited to ASCII- >only english letters but instead should either use unicode or be at > least 8-bit transparent (based on previous experience in non-latin > environment). Beware! Internationalization continues to prove itself hard in practice. We really should permit ASCII-only implementations even if we go as far as "SHOULD support Unicode." > Could we, idr wg, not merge all three mentioned drafts into single one > for combined functionality? I wouldn't object, but consensus to do so hasn't appeared yet. -- John Leslie From heas@shrubbery.net Tue Jul 7 15:32:14 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 4DF2F3A6EDA for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:32:14 -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 6WuwJsQDfBel for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623F83A6EB5 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id DE14A108695; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 22:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:31:32 -0700 From: john heasley To: Dorian Kim Message-ID: <20090707223132.GF26161@shrubbery.net> References: <4A4A5236.9080500@juniper.net> <288684328736954EA150B4E8A324B87618AA69@ASHEVS017.vzbi.com> <4A4CCD02.6060806@cisco.com> <75cb24520907020820r6459c06le2643b1db71f03f4@mail.gmail.com> <20090702155138.GC39194@blackrose.org> <4A4CDAA4.4080802@cisco.com> <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090702165849.GF39194@blackrose.org> X-PGPkey: http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/public-key.asc X-note: live free, or die! X-homer: i just want to have a beer while i am caring. X-Claimation: an engineer needs a manager like a fish needs a bicycle X-reality: only YOU can put an end to the embarrassment that is Tom Cruise User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Cc: Robert Raszuk , 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, 07 Jul 2009 22:32:14 -0000 Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:58:49PM -0400, Dorian Kim: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:04:52AM -0700, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Hi Dorian, > > > >> Given the actual practices of operators today, and the realities of poor > >> coordination in most cases, this proposal will provide a net benefit > >> to day to day operations of the Internet. > > > > It will - I agree. But it will by a sort of patch and accept the actual > > practices and realities of poor coordination isn't it ? > > I think too much discussions down this path will lead us into varying > degress of organisational pathologies and not very useful. IDR will not > and cannot change the way ISPs operate nor will it be able to address the > root cause of the disfunction in inter-ISP and even intra-ISP communications. > > That's almost entirely in the realm of social engineering and we've been down > that road many times before to no fruitful end. > > Leaving that aside, people who run networks are asking for this because it solves > a real world problem they encounter. That by itself should in my opinion be enough > for the working group to decide on "should this be discussed and worked on here" > question. > > > I think some people at last IETF proposed to look into INFORM draft ... It > > can be extended with as many pre-defined messages as required. I have not > > see much discussion comparing both. > > > > I think we here are essentially making the call if free form text to > > syslog/show command is something we should endorse in the BGP protocol or > > not. > > > > If we do let's proceed with the advisory draft making it just a bit more > > robust, if not let's resubmit INFORM and make sure it will address all BGP > > messaging requirements in a well pre-defined form. > > > > Or perhaps both should be done ? > > I'm most likely not the best advocate for this draft since I'm somewhat lukewarm > about its benefit given the cost. However, allow me to bring up and analogy > with all the usual caveats inherent in anaologies. CLNS host info doesn't by > itself amount to much, but has shown itself to be of many time saving operational > uses. So to that extent, some facilities for having a limited free form text > to syslog command tied to BGP may be of more use than we can think of at the moment. this would be a far more useful capability if a) it were generated automatically by the router when possible; eg: send advisory 'over prefix limit' send cease OR send advisory 'reboot' send cease etc. b) it had a non-freeform prefix defined by the draft that can be interpretted programmatically, like smtp, and the remainder freeform left for humans. c) were included in the bgp state change or a advisory-specific snmp trap and mandated by the draft From curtis@occnc.com Tue Jul 7 20:47:00 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 9E6C73A69B9 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:47:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, 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 4r5HO6GdGdKl for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C0C3A6884 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n683k6kL030343; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 23:46:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907080346.n683k6kL030343@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: john heasley From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:31:32 PDT." <20090707223132.GF26161@shrubbery.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:46:06 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: Robert Raszuk , idr@ietf.org, Dorian Kim Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:47:00 -0000 In message <20090707223132.GF26161@shrubbery.net> john heasley writes: > > Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:58:49PM -0400, Dorian Kim: > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:04:52AM -0700, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > Hi Dorian, > > > > > >> Given the actual practices of operators today, and the realities of poor > > >> coordination in most cases, this proposal will provide a net benefit > > >> to day to day operations of the Internet. > > > > > > It will - I agree. But it will by a sort of patch and accept the actual > > > practices and realities of poor coordination isn't it ? > > > > I think too much discussions down this path will lead us into varying > > degress of organisational pathologies and not very useful. IDR will not > > and cannot change the way ISPs operate nor will it be able to address the > > root cause of the disfunction in inter-ISP and even intra-ISP communications. > > > > That's almost entirely in the realm of social engineering and we've been down > > that road many times before to no fruitful end. > > > > Leaving that aside, people who run networks are asking for this because it solves > > a real world problem they encounter. That by itself should in my opinion be enough > > for the working group to decide on "should this be discussed and worked on here" > > question. > > > > > I think some people at last IETF proposed to look into INFORM draft ... It > > > can be extended with as many pre-defined messages as required. I have not > > > see much discussion comparing both. > > > > > > I think we here are essentially making the call if free form text to > > > syslog/show command is something we should endorse in the BGP protocol or > > > not. > > > > > > If we do let's proceed with the advisory draft making it just a bit more > > > robust, if not let's resubmit INFORM and make sure it will address all BGP > > > messaging requirements in a well pre-defined form. > > > > > > Or perhaps both should be done ? > > > > I'm most likely not the best advocate for this draft since I'm somewhat lukewarm > > about its benefit given the cost. However, allow me to bring up and analogy > > with all the usual caveats inherent in anaologies. CLNS host info doesn't by > > itself amount to much, but has shown itself to be of many time saving operational > > uses. So to that extent, some facilities for having a limited free form text > > to syslog command tied to BGP may be of more use than we can think of at the moment. > > this would be a far more useful capability if > a) it were generated automatically by the router when possible; eg: > send advisory 'over prefix limit' > send cease > OR > send advisory 'reboot' > send cease > etc. > b) it had a non-freeform prefix defined by the draft that can be interpretted > programmatically, like smtp, and the remainder freeform left for humans. > c) were included in the bgp state change or a advisory-specific snmp trap > and mandated by the draft I'm not sure why this could not be done with the existing NOTIFICATION. The Cease code has no subcodes, but 'over prefix limit' and 'reboot' could certainly be added and there is already a data field which is unused for Cease and could be defined as human readable free form, zero padded. As long as we can live with 256 Cease subcodes this should be OK. The catch is where we *don't* want to drop the session. The original question was "should this be a WG draft". The answer seems to be "yes" and we are already debating the details. Curtis From heas@shrubbery.net Wed Jul 8 14:48:43 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 3898728C458 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:48:43 -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 0vXt8pYFnjXh for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF7A28C138 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id C4025108695; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:49:09 -0700 From: john heasley To: Curtis Villamizar Message-ID: <20090708214909.GU1443@shrubbery.net> References: <20090707223132.GF26161@shrubbery.net> <200907080346.n683k6kL030343@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907080346.n683k6kL030343@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> X-PGPkey: http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/public-key.asc X-note: live free, or die! X-homer: i just want to have a beer while i am caring. X-Claimation: an engineer needs a manager like a fish needs a bicycle X-reality: only YOU can put an end to the embarrassment that is Tom Cruise User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Cc: Robert Raszuk , idr@ietf.org, Dorian Kim 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, 08 Jul 2009 21:48:43 -0000 Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:46:06PM -0400, Curtis Villamizar: > I'm not sure why this could not be done with the existing > NOTIFICATION. The Cease code has no subcodes, but 'over prefix limit' > and 'reboot' could certainly be added and there is already a data > field which is unused for Cease and could be defined as human readable > free form, zero padded. I believe thats been suggested in past discussion about this draft. > As long as we can live with 256 Cease subcodes this should be OK. The > catch is where we *don't* want to drop the session. unless soft-notify is added, which has been suggested in this thread. > The original question was "should this be a WG draft". The answer > seems to be "yes" and we are already debating the details. I suggest that notification/soft-notify is a better solution, which implies a code/subcode that can be meaningful to a program. From Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net Thu Jul 9 00:02:00 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 CF2CB28C0DC for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 00:02:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_52=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 IzKljTqZgPN6 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 00:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softy.de.easynet.net (softy.de.easynet.net [194.163.250.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1BD3A6AD0 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 00:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe01kgham.de.easynet.net ([194.163.250.17] helo=fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net) by softy.de.easynet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MOneD-0000Nf-8k; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:02:25 +0200 Received: from ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net ([10.43.3.3]) by fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:02:25 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:02:24 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B99B@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-aigp-00 thread-index: Acn+OZh7BqvQdHNWTpOLKfkQKqxF1gAKnTWQAH6X6jA= References: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B99B@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> From: "Ilya Varlashkin" To: "UTTARO, JAMES, ATTLABS" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2009 07:02:25.0394 (UTC) FILETIME=[36C23520:01CA0063] Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-aigp-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, 09 Jul 2009 07:02:00 -0000 Jim, please see further comments/questions inline.=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > > A route with the AIGP attribute must be evaluated in a consistent > manner across an AS or multiple AS domains. If the AIGP=20 > attribute is being used, and each BGP speaker could override=20 > AIGP via LP or some other metric ( AS-PATH, MED etc... ) this=20 > would lead to a great deal of uncertainty about how any one=20 > route could be evaluated. High probability that the same=20 > route will not be evaluated the same way by each speaker that=20 > has agreed to use AIGP. Just to circle back. A method for=20 This sounds contradictory to the fact that AIGP will/should be enabled = only within common administrative area. Since it's same administrative = area with the same policy, why would AIGP evaluated differently from = router to router? Also, if AIGP mimics IGP cost (as suggested by the = draft) then value of AIGP attribute is deterministic across whole = contigious AIGP-enabled area. And finally, I believe the draft should = (and it does) clearly state how AIGP value manipulated (ever increasing = scalar), which prevents inconstistency of AIGP values, and therefore = keeps BGP decision process deterministic, across whole AIGP-enabled = area. > scaling an IGP that contains thousands of PEs is to divorce=20 > the signaling of PE LBs within and across AS domains from the=20 > underlying IGP. The PE LBs are propagated using BGP w/label (=20 > 3107 ). The rationale ( my need ;) ) for AIGP is to allow for=20 > an "IGP" metric ( latency ) to be propagated with a route=20 > that is being exchanged between multiple AS domains or within=20 > an AS Domain where BGP is used as the signaling protocol. In=20 That's excellent! I was also long looking for possibility to propagate = "total IGP cost" across different AS's (members of a BGP confederation = in my case). And if it's something based on IGP cost, why not evaluate = it at about the same point of decision process as original IGP cost? Let = me know if you would like me to provide an example how this would work. =20 > > This comes back to the single administrative authority. AIGP is not > appropriate where two administrative authorities have not=20 > agreed across both AS domains to use AIGP. Are you describing=20 > two distinct admin authorities? If not, why would'nt the AIGP=20 > attribute be originated to begin with in the original=20 > confederation member AS domains? >=20 I don't think that administrative authority is an obstacle here. What I = meant is not to let AIGP traverse across global internet unrestricted, = but that within single administrative authority it should be possible to = apply AIGP to any prefix that has to be routed within that = administrative domain. For example, consider a prefix was learned from a = foreign network (outside of considered administrative domain) by one AS = in London, then propagated into second AS (within same administrative = domain) in Hamburg and Frankfurt. Within this second AS there is a = router in Berlin connected to both Hamburg and Frankfurt, which wants to = send traffic to that foreign network. If AIGP is not allowed to be = applied to foreign prefixes, then router in Berlin decides to send = traffic via border router in Frankfurt because of IGP cost within its = own AS. This traffic then goes into first AS which due to topology has = to send traffic to London via Hamburg anyway. So the traffic has incured = extra delay and wasted link capacity. Now if AIGP would have been = allowed on foreign prefixes, then router in Berlin could see total IGP = cost (=3D=3DAIGP) and would choose to send traffic straight via Hamburg = because AIGP for that path would be smaller than via Frankfurt. This = kind of scenario is very similar to how MED is used by many networks - = even if there is no mutual agreement about comparable MED between two = administrative domains, each of them is still free to set any MED on any = prefix (own or foreign) within its own network. Why not permit the same = for AIGP? Regards, iLya From root@core3.amsl.com Sun Jul 12 12:45:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 267DB28C19D; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090712194502.267DB28C19D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession-04.txt 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: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Multisession BGP Author(s) : J. Scudder, C. Appanna Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession-04.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2009-07-12 This specification augments "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4" (MP- BGP) by proposing a mechanism to facilitate the use of multiple sessions between a given pair of BGP speakers. Each session is used to transport routes related by some session-based attribute such as AFI/SAFI. This provides an alternative to the MP-BGP approach of multiplexing all routes onto a single connection. Use of this approach is expected to provide finer-grained fault management and isolation as the BGP protocol is used to support more and more diverse services. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-07-12123119.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From paul@jakma.org Fri Jul 17 01:52:33 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 8D1C33A6D31 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:52:33 -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 XOsQ3B-q7b7d for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:52:32 -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 6AE903A68A4 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:52:31 -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 n6H8qiT5013447 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:52:58 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:52:44 +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 X-NSA: al aqsar fluffy jihad cute musharef kittens jet-A1 ear avgas wax ammonium bad qran dog inshallah allah al-akbar martyr iraq hammas hisballah rabin ayatollah korea revolt pelvix mustard gas x-ray british airways washington peroxide cool MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1471075816-1941916598-1247820778=:13450" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.1.1 (hibernia.jakma.org [212.17.55.49]); Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:52:59 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Idr] Results of survey on the MRAI 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: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:52:33 -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. ---1471075816-1941916598-1247820778=:13450 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII As attached, regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: /* * At first I thought these guys were on crack, but then I discovered the * LART. */ - comment from include/linux/mtd/cfi_endian.h ---1471075816-1941916598-1247820778=:13450 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; name=mrai-dep-report.txt Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=mrai-dep-report.txt CQkJCQkJCVBhdWwgSmFrbWENCgkJCQkJCQkyMDA5LTA5LTE2DQoJDQoJUmVw b3J0IG9uIHRoZSByZXN1bHRzIG9mIGEgc3VydmV5IG9uIHRoZSBCR1AgTVJB SQ0KDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpPcmdhbmlzYXRp b246IElQSW5mdXNpb24NClJlc3BvbmRlbnQ6IFNhbWl0YSBDaGFrcmFiYXJ0 aSANCkltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uOiBaZWJPUw0KDQpEZWZhdWx0IE1SQUkgdmFs dWVzOg0KDQoJLSBpQkdQOiA1cw0KCS0gZUJHUDogMzBzDQoNCk1SQUkgY29u ZmlndXJhYmxlOg0KDQoJLSBvbiBhIHBlci1wZWVyIGJhc2lzDQoNCk1SQUkg YXBwbGllZCB0byB3aXRoZHJhd2FsczoNCg0KCS0gWWVzDQoNCg0KLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCk9yZ2FuaXNhdGlvbjogSnVuaXBl cg0KUmVzcG9uZGVudDogS2FsaXJhaiBWYWlyYXZha2thbGFpDQpJbXBsZW1l bnRhdGlvbjogSlVOT1NFIChKdW5pcGVyIEVkZ2UtUm91dGVyIE9TKQ0KDQpE ZWZhdWx0IE1SQUkgdmFsdWVzOg0KDQoJLSBpQkdQOiA1cw0KCS0gZUJHUDog MzBzDQoNCk1SQUkgY29uZmlndXJhYmxlOg0KDQoJLSBvbiBhIHBlci1wZWVy IGJhc2lzDQoNCk1SQUkgYXBwbGllZCB0byB3aXRoZHJhd2FsczoNCg0KCS0g WWVzDQo= ---1471075816-1941916598-1247820778=:13450-- From skh@ndzh.com Sat Jul 18 09:28:37 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 BAF6E3A6A53 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:28:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.619 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 npdJbCQY0VE8 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (63-208-161-197.digitalrealm.net [63.208.161.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0275A3A67FD for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fargo (unverified [64.112.195.202]) by hickoryhill-consulting.com (SurgeMail 3.9h) with ESMTP id 484312-1945496 for multiple; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:28:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4CF5DB9597764F71A3709F1648945181@ghs.com> From: "Susan Hares" To: Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:28:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0049_01CA07A3.4182B830" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" 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: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:28:37 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01CA07A3.4182B830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, draft-scholl-idr-advisory-00.txt is accepted as an IDR WG document. =20 Authors of the document should resubmit it as = draft-ietf-idr-advisory-00.txt. Sue and John with Yakov's aid ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01CA07A3.4182B830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Folks,

draft-scholl-idr-advisory-00.txt is accepted as an IDR WG document.
=20
Authors of the document should resubmit it as =
draft-ietf-idr-advisory-00.txt.

Sue and John 
with Yakov's aid =
------=_NextPart_000_0049_01CA07A3.4182B830-- From skh@ndzh.com Sat Jul 18 09:37:31 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 306E63A69E2 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:37:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.119 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.499, BAYES_60=1, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 ssu9qJt726T8 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (63-208-161-197.digitalrealm.net [63.208.161.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578783A696B for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fargo (unverified [64.112.195.202]) by hickoryhill-consulting.com (SurgeMail 3.9h) with ESMTP id 484327-1945496 for multiple; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:37:29 -0400 Message-ID: <445E3F7D18924E5DAAB9E4B31B95E177@ghs.com> From: "Susan Hares" To: Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:37:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0051_01CA07A4.81802390" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: [Idr] Friendly note from IDR 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: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:37:31 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01CA07A4.81802390 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just a friendly note from WG co-chair. Life is long. Words tend to have an impact.=20 Please refrain from making comments about people's jobs. Even in the middle good debate on IDR with repartee and insider jokes - = please remember these lists are open. Not everyone understands the = "insider jokes." =20 Thanks! Sue Hares=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01CA07A4.81802390 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just a friendly note from WG = co-chair.
 
Life is long.  Words tend to have = an impact.=20
 
Please refrain from making comments about people's jobs.
 
Even in the middle good debate on IDR with repartee and = insider jokes=20 - please remember these lists are open.  Not everyone understands=20 the "insider jokes."  
 
Thanks!
 
Sue Hares

 
------=_NextPart_000_0051_01CA07A4.81802390-- From skh@ndzh.com Mon Jul 20 15:14:53 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 6AED128C1A8 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:14:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.619 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 BZ7ujhPuLFMb for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (63-208-161-197.digitalrealm.net [63.208.161.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DD43A68DC for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fargo (unverified [69.198.118.194]) by hickoryhill-consulting.com (SurgeMail 3.9h) with ESMTP id 490538-1945496 for multiple; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:14:42 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Susan Hares" To: Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:14:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01CA0965.F14CCE90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 20 Jul 2009 22:14:53 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01CA0965.F14CCE90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We have received a request to accept = draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG = document. Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 Sue and John ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01CA0965.F14CCE90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
We have received a =
request to accept 
draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an =
IDR WG document. 
Please send your votes =
by 8/3/09. 

Sue and John
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01CA0965.F14CCE90-- From Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net Tue Jul 21 00:18:15 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 4B4313A69CE for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:18:15 -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 iDRGkEoB3qoK for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softy.de.easynet.net (softy.de.easynet.net [194.163.250.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFE33A6960 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe01kgham.de.easynet.net ([194.163.250.17] helo=fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net) by softy.de.easynet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MT8hS-0003UF-F6; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:19:42 +0200 Received: from ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net ([10.43.3.3]) by fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:19:42 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:19:41 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft thread-index: AcoJh4R6ywS9VzvuSfiW/G/AejM59QAQ6qeQ References: From: "Ilya Varlashkin" To: "Susan Hares" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2009 06:19:42.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[3C1B8CD0:01CA09CB] Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft 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, 21 Jul 2009 07:18:15 -0000 support /iLya=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] Im=20 > Auftrag von Susan Hares > Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juli 2009 00:15 > An: idr@ietf.org > Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder > Betreff: [Idr]=20 > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft >=20 > We have received a request to accept > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an=20 > IDR WG document.=20 > Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 >=20 > Sue and John=20 >=20 From david.freedman@uk.clara.net Tue Jul 21 04:14:02 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 093493A6E55 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:14:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 a1plVrqdZqnz for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from synchronicity.convergence.cx (synchronicity.convergence.cx [IPv6:2001:a88:0:ffff::6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3023A6E54 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=tdcdf1) by synchronicity.convergence.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MTDID-0001Fp-9A for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:13:57 +0100 Message-ID: <4A65A2F5.9060704@uk.clara.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:13:57 +0100 From: David Freedman Organization: Claranet LImited User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090706) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 21 Jul 2009 11:14:02 -0000 Support Susan Hares wrote: > We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document. Please send your votes by 8/3/09. > Sue and John > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From Jamie.Stephens@chartercom.com Mon Jul 20 19:30:22 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 A1A043A6DFC for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 8gwqVfAsK9Lp for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.chartercom.com (mail.chartercom.com [24.217.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06903A6DFF for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:30:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,238,1246856400"; d="scan'208";a="49474876" Received: from kstlmexc02.corp.chartercom.com ([192.168.134.182]) by mail.chartercom.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2009 21:30:08 -0500 Received: from KSTLMEXM02.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM ([192.168.152.194]) by KSTLMEXC02.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:30:07 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:30:02 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4Yq7xkYSUmIQ+CCPioa0SVwzAAI5r1w References: From: "Stephens, Jamie A" To: "Susan Hares" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2009 02:30:07.0681 (UTC) FILETIME=[29AE0B10:01CA09AB] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:43:15 -0700 Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft 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, 21 Jul 2009 02:31:35 -0000 yes -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:15 PM To: idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Subject: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft We have received a request to accept=20 draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document.=20 Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 Sue and John=20 E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:=20 =20 =20 =20 The contents of this e-mail message and=20 any attachments are intended solely for the=20 addressee(s) and may contain confidential=20 and/or legally privileged information. If you=20 are not the intended recipient of this message=20 or if this message has been addressed to you=20 in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message=20 and any attachments. If you are not the=20 intended recipient, you are notified that=20 any use, dissemination, distribution, copying,=20 or storage of this message or any attachment=20 is strictly prohibited. From prvs=Joseph.Singarayer=44687341f@rci.rogers.com Tue Jul 21 05:59:47 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 9EF583A6D69 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=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 Nre5HS7X-Iit for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.mail.rss.rogers.com (mail.mail.rss.rogers.com [142.146.31.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6653A68FD for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1787619485==" Received: from CL06MBA.rci.rogers.ca ([10.3.45.32]) by RSOESNGTABHA.rci.rogers.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:59:34 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:59:34 -0400 Message-ID: <862D52D477355041825C14D9F3705AC40FB7BB@CL06MBA.rci.rogers.ca> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4Yq7xkYSUmIQ+CCPioa0SVwzAAe2rIw From: "Joseph Singarayer" To: "Susan Hares" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2009 12:59:35.0048 (UTC) FILETIME=[18C8E880:01CA0A03] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:43:15 -0700 Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft 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, 21 Jul 2009 13:06:14 -0000 --===============1787619485== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable yes -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:15 PM To: idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Subject: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft We have received a request to accept=20 draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document.=20 Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 Sue and John=20 --===============1787619485== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline This e-mail (and attachment(s)) is confidential, proprietary, may be subjec= t to copyright and legal privilege and no related rights are waived. If you= are not the intended recipient or its agent, any review, dissemination, di= stribution or copying of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly proh= ibited and may be unlawful. All messages may be monitored as permitted by a= pplicable law and regulations and our policies to protect our business. E-m= ails are not secure and you are deemed to have accepted any risk if you com= municate with us by e-mail. If received in error, please notify us immediat= ely and delete the e-mail (and any attachments) from any computer or any st= orage medium without printing a copy. Ce courriel (ainsi que ses pi=C3=A8ces jointes) est confidentiel, exclusif,= et peut faire l=E2=80=99objet de droit d=E2=80=99auteur et de privil=C3=A8= ge juridique; aucun droit connexe n=E2=80=99est exclu. Si vous n=E2=80=99= =C3=AAtes pas le destinataire vis=C3=A9 ou son repr=C3=A9sentant, toute =C3= =A9tude, diffusion, transmission ou copie de ce courriel en tout ou en part= ie, est strictement interdite et peut =C3=AAtre ill=C3=A9gale. Tous les mes= sages peuvent =C3=AAtre surveill=C3=A9s, selon les lois et r=C3=A8glements = applicables et les politiques de protection de notre entreprise. Les courri= els ne sont pas s=C3=A9curis=C3=A9s et vous =C3=AAtes r=C3=A9put=C3=A9s avo= ir accept=C3=A9 tous les risques qui y sont li=C3=A9s si vous choisissez de= communiquer avec nous par ce moyen. Si vous avez re=C3=A7u ce message par = erreur, veuillez nous en aviser imm=C3=A9diatement et supprimer ce courriel= (ainsi que toutes ses pi=C3=A8ces jointes) de tout ordinateur ou support d= e donn=C3=A9es sans en imprimer une copie.=20 --===============1787619485==-- From michael.bonnett@chartercom.com Tue Jul 21 06:15:45 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 C0E6C3A67D3 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:15:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 iCYQ6X5WqSRk for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.chartercom.com (mail.chartercom.com [24.217.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0639028C29D for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:15:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,240,1246856400"; d="scan'208";a="49537282" Received: from kstlmexc02.corp.chartercom.com ([192.168.134.182]) by mail.chartercom.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2009 08:15:32 -0500 Received: from KSTLMEXM03.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM ([192.168.152.195]) by KSTLMEXC02.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:15:32 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:15:30 -0500 Message-ID: <260A6BBA18685B4C93BDBA5A919A4CC008D646B2@KSTLMEXM03.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4Yq7xkYSUmIQ+CCPioa0SVwzAAfV+hg References: From: "Bonnett Jr, Michael" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2009 13:15:32.0249 (UTC) FILETIME=[53523090:01CA0A05] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:43:15 -0700 Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft 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, 21 Jul 2009 13:15:45 -0000 Yes -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:15 PM To: idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Subject: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft We have received a request to accept=20 draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document.=20 Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 Sue and John=20 E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:=20 =20 =20 =20 The contents of this e-mail message and=20 any attachments are intended solely for the=20 addressee(s) and may contain confidential=20 and/or legally privileged information. If you=20 are not the intended recipient of this message=20 or if this message has been addressed to you=20 in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message=20 and any attachments. If you are not the=20 intended recipient, you are notified that=20 any use, dissemination, distribution, copying,=20 or storage of this message or any attachment=20 is strictly prohibited. From Jeremy.Hoffpauir@chartercom.com Tue Jul 21 06:26:04 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 812AF3A6B15 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:26:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13] 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 w5haTvwyTF+i for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.chartercom.com (mail.chartercom.com [24.217.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7499C3A6967 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,240,1246856400"; d="scan'208";a="49538702" Received: from kstlmexc02.corp.chartercom.com ([192.168.134.182]) by mail.chartercom.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2009 08:26:02 -0500 Received: from KSTLMEXM03.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM ([192.168.152.195]) by KSTLMEXC02.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:26:01 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:25:59 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4Yq7xkYSUmIQ+CCPioa0SVwzAAfy/Kw References: From: "Hoffpauir, Jeremy G" To: "Susan Hares" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2009 13:26:01.0889 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA9DA110:01CA0A06] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:43:14 -0700 Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft 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, 21 Jul 2009 13:29:46 -0000 I support this - YES Thx, jh -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:15 PM To: idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Subject: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft We have received a request to accept=20 draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document.=20 Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 Sue and John=20 E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:=20 =20 =20 =20 The contents of this e-mail message and=20 any attachments are intended solely for the=20 addressee(s) and may contain confidential=20 and/or legally privileged information. If you=20 are not the intended recipient of this message=20 or if this message has been addressed to you=20 in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message=20 and any attachments. If you are not the=20 intended recipient, you are notified that=20 any use, dissemination, distribution, copying,=20 or storage of this message or any attachment=20 is strictly prohibited. From jgs@juniper.net Tue Jul 21 08:08:03 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 6FCED28C2F4 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.034 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.565, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, 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 ja2+0oya8L9R for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA9528C2FD for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSmXZfNW65ByMGB29FC5IvnnSzzHv+Xn8@postini.com; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:08:03 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, 21 Jul 2009 07:59:19 -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, 21 Jul 2009 07:59:19 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp56.jnpr.net ([172.24.60.77]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:59:19 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:59:18 -0700 Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n6LExGd94772; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:59:16 -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: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:59:15 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2009 14:59:18.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[D296E040:01CA0A13] Subject: [Idr] IDR agenda posted 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, 21 Jul 2009 15:08:03 -0000 Folks, The agenda has been posted at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/agenda/idr.txt As a reminder, the meeting WILL NOT START until we have at least one scribe to take notes. In the interest of not wasting time, we would appreciate it if someone would volunteer ahead of time, instead of the traditional approach of everyone pretending to examine their shoelaces while the chairs wait for a volunteer at the last minute! Please let us know if you're willing to cover yourself in glory by doing this. Thanks in advance, --John & Sue From mikeb@gblx.net Tue Jul 21 09:10:43 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 663783A6E68 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:10:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 cH-0RlXGVtBb for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.disturbed.org (host-216-9-185-208.orbitelcom.com [216.9.185.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ED73A69F9 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.disturbed.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pinky.disturbed.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n6LG9YEo078345; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:09:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mikeb@gblx.net) Received: (from mikeb@localhost) by pinky.disturbed.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n6LG9XwW078344; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:09:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mikeb@gblx.net) X-Authentication-Warning: pinky.disturbed.org: mikeb set sender to mikeb@gblx.net using -f Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:09:33 -0700 From: Mike Benjamin To: Susan Hares Message-ID: <20090721160933.GA72734@gblx.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: idr@ietf.org, "John G. Scudder" , yakov@juniper.net Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 21 Jul 2009 16:10:43 -0000 Support. On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 06:14:37PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote: : We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document. Please send your votes by 8/3/09. : Sue and John : _______________________________________________ : Idr mailing list : Idr@ietf.org : https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr -- Mike Benjamin - +1-602-744-3403 mikeb@gblx.net - Development Engineering Global Crossing - Phoenix, USA From zubair.ahmad@orange-ftgroup.com Tue Jul 21 09:15:18 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 871D228C328 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.118 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 kR+b4f7yihhR for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49A628C2FA for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.199]) by omfeda12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E7DB83B43F4; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:14:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PWEXCB10.usa.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.112.0.68]) by omfeda06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 99EDC70002; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:14:45 +0200 (CEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:14:44 -0400 Message-ID: <7C5C5ED440632B4DAE601971324975F50113E246@PWEXCB10.usa.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4Yq7xkYSUmIQ+CCPioa0SVwzAAlQ/NQ References: From: To: "Susan Hares" , Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft 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, 21 Jul 2009 16:15:18 -0000 =20 I support the adoption of this draft as IDR WG doc=2E Zubair -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf=2Eorg [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf=2Eorg] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:15 PM To: idr@ietf=2Eorg Cc: yakov@juniper=2Enet; John G=2E Scudder Subject: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00=2Etxt as an IDR WG document=2E=20 Please send your votes by 8/3/09=2E=20 Sue and John=20 ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and= intended solely for the addressees=2E=20 Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited=2E Messages are susceptible to alteration=2E=20 France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered,= changed or falsified=2E If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it= immediately and inform the sender=2E ******************************** From samitac@ipinfusion.com Tue Jul 21 13:04:33 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 0A6043A6AC0 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.336 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] 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 QMeahaJ1Domk for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp109.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (smtp109.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [67.195.14.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FCA83A6A9D for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 68276 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2009 20:04:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO samitacD630) (samitac@65.223.109.250 with login) by smtp109.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2009 20:04:03 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: FqtVHSuswBDOeO1kTNqmH0VMNjsNfJ3q6aq52i5EWSKoJg-- X-YMail-OSG: LZ9ZwrcVM1lJCvoESy5hrdpS.dYO09fqBCuLG8UgZu7uC2rK86P3iElivOrEkYb0AnVkl0poW7eux9OWtoQFTrD_H8Zc8m98ZMvOVW2eMf6.U9nKRH5qx6hBoLhybIZAKxEf7hO5F7AhojZpfIF9723JEMnuiqv2zSlyQcMxHjddnNgIMoTYe4_FBCmHFcJE1fHcOpVYKO..9vwPN0LCgA.tpSTr6baY59GkDqKgb7CZIaQmPIfdT2V2Q.0oXlXdlvdGva5JnIfxgZhVnCFi6n6wRUewY3A2EQubUIcu6Bd1f7.S X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: "Samita Chakrabarti" To: , Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:04:00 -0700 Message-ID: <01e301ca0a3e$63b58110$2b208330$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01E4_01CA0A03.B756A910" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcoKPl+XmO9l3SRsSDaSeVGAkSoabQ== Content-Language: en-us x-cr-hashedpuzzle: A5nJ CuAI FOAh GEB4 HHIV IWhR NkRn TiZK XXQi XfhA aLOs ag/c dApN hXFw iQdA kAuk; 3; aQBkAHIAQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcAOwBrAGUAeQB1AHAAYQB0AGUAQABjAGkAcwBjAG8ALgBjAG8AbQA7AHMAawBoAEAAbgBkAHoAaAAuAGMAbwBtAA==; Sosha1_v1; 7; {14E011C8-9839-4801-BEB3-6837B322C141}; cwBhAG0AaQB0AGEAYwBAAGkAcABpAG4AZgB1AHMAaQBvAG4ALgBjAG8AbQA=; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:03:54 GMT; UAByAG8AZwByAGUAcwBzACAAbwBmACAAZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AaQBkAHIALQBhAHMAcABhAHQAaAAtAG8AcgBmACAAPwA= x-cr-puzzleid: {14E011C8-9839-4801-BEB3-6837B322C141} Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] Progress of draft-idr-aspath-orf ? 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, 21 Jul 2009 20:04:33 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01E4_01CA0A03.B756A910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Sue/Keyur: Is there any plan to update/progess draft-ietf-idr-aspath-orf-09.txt ? The idr charter talks about it, but the draft has expired in Aug, 2007 : Progress along standards track an Outbound Router Filter (ORF) type for BGP, that can be used to perform aspath based route filtering. The ORF-type will support aspath based route filtering as well as regular expression based matching for address groups. Currently defined in draft-ietf-idr-aspath-orf-00.txt. Thanks, -Samita ------=_NextPart_000_01E4_01CA0A03.B756A910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Sue/Keyur:

 

Is there any plan to update/progess draf=
t-ietf-idr-aspath-orf-09.txt ?
 
The idr =
charter talks about it, but the draft has expired in Aug, 2007 =
:
=
Progress along standards track an Outbound Router Filter (ORF) 

type for BGP, that can be used to perform aspath based route 

filtering. The ORF-type will support aspath based route filtering 

as well as regular expression based matching for address groups. 

Currently defined in draft-ietf-idr-aspath-orf-00.txt.

 

 

Thanks,

-Samita

------=_NextPart_000_01E4_01CA0A03.B756A910-- From mohan.nanduri@gmail.com Tue Jul 21 14:14:30 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 6E81228C38F for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 knNjZJZuVUEO for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f196.google.com (mail-yx0-f196.google.com [209.85.210.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C150E28C3A9 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxe34 with SMTP id 34so5597937yxe.29 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:13:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TTqrJF5+4HG6S8bL3E3oVZxdxThr/eLvR+GssoO+ER8=; b=atINmE7KEFbFF2EYZVhp7XxU9qQoGFm9HgTDZzIUqUk6+zkHsSLNKBH0aNxlFGsp3i tP807Nhdy8uYeybOcP89xUb8luYGi7QLPCkQizAZrbtUnsBflsUKpsT9pXt2Key5QbEC g0DkiQYViWXFN2yGPuIwGKsLJICER1nGOrm5E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=pZd5jdYTe19g+3GtpyRR2yxh9+zkcEu/B1ze0ydz+41cDq+okU0Yy5A+QVTQaueiYN uXYOeTYv0T1Vp1JraDu/JasIAOUA37KPAhdHyDu9ZAu/ofvc38tjVDFrM4TzzyKfnkQc DBz6w8FqHyhMoxZ5zUp1mlm0DCzGrVhJVJ88Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.142.2 with SMTP id u2mr366390ybn.234.1248210835826; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:13:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:13:55 -0400 Message-ID: From: Mohan Nanduri To: Susan Hares Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151750da5a7967e8046f3dbbb6 Cc: idr@ietf.org, "John G. Scudder" , yakov@juniper.net Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 21 Jul 2009 21:14:30 -0000 --00151750da5a7967e8046f3dbbb6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Support. Thanks, -Mohan On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Susan Hares wrote: > We have received a request to accept > > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document. > > Please send your votes by 8/3/09. > > Sue and John > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > --00151750da5a7967e8046f3dbbb6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support.

Thanks,
-Mohan


On = Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Susan Hares <skh@ndzh.com> wrote:
We have received=
 a request to accept 
draft-asati-idr-bgp=
-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document.
Please send your votes by 8/3/09. 

Sue and John

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr


--00151750da5a7967e8046f3dbbb6-- From rpapneja@isocore.com Tue Jul 21 18:34:29 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 417E63A6AAA for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:34:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] 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 alO6F5RsINZr for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net (eastrmmtao104.cox.net [68.230.240.46]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CB028C328 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090722013429.QRCY5576.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:34:29 -0400 Received: from [63.213.193.163] ([72.205.26.101]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id JpaS1c00L2At21k02paTgM; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:34:28 -0400 X-VR-Score: 0.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=to09xQeDCrsA:10 a=1sjgXBK7AAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=OUXY8nFuAAAA:8 a=uFTkRwfPDeKJWh-JmtsA:9 a=960kbuXiJmbEh64gXCyWU1qaA6kA:4 a=kZwP4KTQBigA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=peF9eE_zjQwA:10 a=6Kb6KbPMlcJ9oCX1MlAA:7 a=pR-EbIIHLTTHhOZiBAxtvkdEIqoA:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.0.0.071130 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:34:25 -0400 From: Rajiv Papneja To: Susan Hares , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft Thread-Index: AcoKbIuzptRsyp5BSECrTR4AzoevcQ== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3331056867_35245083" Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 22 Jul 2009 01:34:29 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3331056867_35245083 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I support the work. Thanks, /Rajiv From: Susan Hares Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:14:37 -0400 To: Cc: , "John G. Scudder" Subject: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document. Please send your votes by 8/3/09. Sue and John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --B_3331056867_35245083 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG = draft I support the work.

Thanks, /Rajiv


From: Susan Hares <skh@ndzh= .com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:14:37 -0400
To: <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: <yakov@juniper.net>, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@b= gp.nu>
Subject: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as ID= R WG draft

We have received a request to accept
draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG documen= t.
Please send your votes by 8/3/09.

Sue and John

__________________________= _____________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
 --B_3331056867_35245083-- From curtis@occnc.com Tue Jul 21 19:09:23 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 60B363A697A for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:09:23 -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 SkNvz7SAsidy for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5D63A6857 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n6M28Z96079438 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:08:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907220208.n6M28Z96079438@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: idr From: Curtis Villamizar Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:08:35 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:09:23 -0000 Susan Hares wrote: > We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document. Please send your votes by 8/3/09. > Sue and John The draft that I just fetched (as -01) says: This Internet-Draft, draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt, has expired, and has been deleted from the Internet-Drafts directory. I'm not sure how we can take a "vote" with the draft unavailable for review. Curtis From jgs@juniper.net Tue Jul 21 20:00:52 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 C679B3A68E2 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:00:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.222 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.377, 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 o7-z1l2TXxIb for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BF13A635F for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSmaA3hOsRgBBmzzDZI9ardnnk5QKAzFO@postini.com; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:00:52 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, 21 Jul 2009 19:57:25 -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); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:57:25 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp56.jnpr.net ([172.24.60.77]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:57:25 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:57:24 -0700 Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n6M2vNd47658; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:57:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net) Message-ID: <56CC1BBE-4437-4FA8-85A6-D4E3E9A9B8C6@juniper.net> From: "John G. Scudder" To: curtis@occnc.com, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" In-Reply-To: <200907220208.n6M28Z96079438@harbor.orleans.occnc.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: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:57:23 -0400 References: <200907220208.n6M28Z96079438@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2009 02:57:24.0723 (UTC) FILETIME=[23D89430:01CA0A78] Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 22 Jul 2009 03:00:52 -0000 On Jul 21, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > Susan Hares wrote: >> We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath- >> selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document. Please send your >> votes by 8/3/09. >> Sue and John > > > The draft that I just fetched (as -01) says: > > This Internet-Draft, > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt, has > expired, and has been deleted from the Internet-Drafts directory. > > I'm not sure how we can take a "vote" with the draft unavailable for > review. A fair point. Rajiv, can you please refresh the draft? Curtis, my advanced search engine skills enabled me to find http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00 , which should take care of the practical issue if you don't want to wait until the draft gets refreshed (which I assume will only happen after the IETF due to the pre-IETF draft publication freeze). --John From rajiva@cisco.com Tue Jul 21 20:48:15 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 8AC043A67A6 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:48:15 -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 uPCgVzd1hS70 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAC03A635F for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:48:14 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAM8oZkpAZnme/2dsb2JhbAC5JIgjkFAFhA4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,243,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="51333975" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2009 03:48:14 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6M3mEoN012531; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:48:14 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6M3mEGD012764; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:48:14 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:48:13 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:48:10 -0400 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B608698D55@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <56CC1BBE-4437-4FA8-85A6-D4E3E9A9B8C6@juniper.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft Thread-Index: AcoKeKZLbnz9JBn7TCG1OR1nt03tVgABEhtw References: <200907220208.n6M28Z96079438@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> <56CC1BBE-4437-4FA8-85A6-D4E3E9A9B8C6@juniper.net> From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "John G. Scudder" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2009 03:48:13.0887 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D4A14F0:01CA0A7F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1907; t=1248234494; x=1249098494; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Idr]=20draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-se lection-criteria=20as=20IDR=20WG=20draft |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22John=20G.=20Scudder=22=20,=20; bh=hD81BeY8SKLsYwQWkNorjBLZypL/dLJ7puRWbjc5WRQ=; b=ZUT282XvY7z9H/z95JdGEmjUwvrHNF3vzLi6CKAWrFpQWmAuUrz6tr2SGt kGuHDdhZcppm4qMsLWYOY88qgLxfZqepMCTjF1Wu2t6yEOgZ7FtHlda04gSw q/l1+8j72r; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 22 Jul 2009 03:48:15 -0000 Hi John, > Curtis, my advanced search engine skills enabled me to find > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criter ia-00 > , which should take care of the practical issue if you don't want to > wait until the draft gets refreshed (which I assume will only happen > after the IETF due to the pre-IETF draft publication freeze). Indeed. We will have to wait until the 27th (one more week) per the publication freeze.=20 I have the next version ready to go. Thanks for sharing the pointer to the -00 draft. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: John G. Scudder [mailto:jgs@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:57 PM > To: curtis@occnc.com; Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Cc: idr List > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG > draft >=20 > On Jul 21, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > Susan Hares wrote: > >> We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath- > >> selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document. Please send your > >> votes by 8/3/09. > >> Sue and John > > > > > > The draft that I just fetched (as -01) says: > > > > This Internet-Draft, > > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt, has > > expired, and has been deleted from the Internet-Drafts directory. > > > > I'm not sure how we can take a "vote" with the draft unavailable for > > review. >=20 > A fair point. >=20 > Rajiv, can you please refresh the draft? > =09 > Curtis, my advanced search engine skills enabled me to find > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criter ia-00 > , which should take care of the practical issue if you don't want to > wait until the draft gets refreshed (which I assume will only happen > after the IETF due to the pre-IETF draft publication freeze). >=20 > --John From uttaro@att.com Wed Jul 22 06:46:02 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 4EBAD3A6AE9 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:46:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 4+TDvTUjDG8R for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CEA13A69BD for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:46:01 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: uttaro@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1248270232!14502925!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 7935 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2009 13:43:52 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-11.tower-146.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Jul 2009 13:43:52 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6MDhqCu014650; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:43:53 -0400 Received: from misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [144.155.43.107]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6MDhmRZ014588; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:43:48 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:43:48 -0400 Message-ID: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B9DD@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDRWGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4R6ywS9VzvuSfiW/G/AejM59QAQ6qeQAEHPBfA= References: From: "UTTARO, JAMES, ATTLABS" To: "Ilya Varlashkin" , "Susan Hares" , Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDRWGdraft 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, 22 Jul 2009 13:46:02 -0000 Support. Jim Uttaro=20 -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Ilya Varlashkin Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:20 AM To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as = IDRWGdraft support /iLya=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] Im=20 > Auftrag von Susan Hares > Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juli 2009 00:15 > An: idr@ietf.org > Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder > Betreff: [Idr]=20 > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft >=20 > We have received a request to accept > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an=20 > IDR WG document.=20 > Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 >=20 > Sue and John=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From Guan.Deng@KabelDeutschland.de Wed Jul 22 07:52:12 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 425B83A6882 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:52:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 JTI7M1eYkYIr for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from antivir.kabeldeutschland.de (antivir.kabeldeutschland.de [83.169.191.241]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADF53A6403 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qrz1023.kabeldeutschland.de [10.32.12.98] by antivir.kabeldeutschland.de id 7KVPK04F outgoing id 7NYY28VX; 22 Jul 2009 16:43:26 +0200 Received: from QRZ4283.viola.local (qrz4283.kabeldeutschland.de [10.32.29.50]) by qrz1023.kabeldeutschland.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n6MEmRli013971; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:48:27 +0200 (MEST) Received: from QRZ4287.viola.local ([10.32.29.51]) by QRZ4283.viola.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:49:11 +0200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:49:10 +0200 Message-ID: <86F81850BABA434A9E2F6FEF592816E903D4A2DC@QRZ4287.viola.local> In-Reply-To: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B9DD@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria asIDRWGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4R6ywS9VzvuSfiW/G/AejM59QAQ6qeQAEHPBfAAAkVxkA== References: <1477DEAE19DD884CB004730D0FD77FD701E9B9DD@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> From: "Deng, Guan" To: "UTTARO, JAMES, ATTLABS" , "Ilya Varlashkin" , "Susan Hares" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2009 14:49:11.0048 (UTC) FILETIME=[92CCA080:01CA0ADB] Cc: yakov@juniper.net, "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria asIDRWGdraft 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, 22 Jul 2009 15:11:45 -0000 =20 Yes, Support. Guan Deng -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von UT= TARO, JAMES, ATTLABS Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Juli 2009 15:44 An: Ilya Varlashkin; Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Betreff: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria asIDRW= Gdraft Support. Jim Uttaro=20 -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ily= a Varlashkin Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:20 AM To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR= WGdraft support /iLya=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von=20 > Susan Hares > Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juli 2009 00:15 > An: idr@ietf.org > Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder > Betreff: [Idr] > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft >=20 > We have received a request to accept > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG=20 > document. > Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 >=20 > Sue and John >=20 _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr -- Kabel Deutschland bietet Ihnen Fernsehen, Internet und Telefonie aus eine= r Hand. Informieren Sie sich ueber unsere Produkte unter www.kabeldeutsch= land.de Diese E-Mail und etwaige Anhaenge enthalten vertrauliche und/oder rechtli= ch geschuetzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind, = benachrichtigen Sie bitte den Absender und vernichten Sie anschliessend d= iese Mail und die Anlagen. -- Kabel Deutschland GmbH Betastr. 6-8 85774 Unterfoehring Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dr. Adrian von Hammerstein, Erik Adams, Dr. Manuel Cub= ero del Castillo-Olivares, Paul Thomason Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. Heinz Riesenhuber Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 145 837, Sitz der Gesellschaft:= Unterfoehring ------------ Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG Betastr. 6-8 85774 Unterfoehring Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRA 83902, Sitz der Gesellschaft: U= nterfoehring Komplementaerin: Kabel Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, Amtsgericht Muenchen= , HRB 145 835, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Unterfoehring Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dr. Adrian von Hammerstein, Erik Adams, Dr. Manuel Cub= ero del Castillo-Olivares, Paul Thomason ------------ Kabel Deutschland Breitband Services GmbH Betastr. 6-8 85774 Unterfoehring Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dr. Adrian von Hammerstein, Erik Adams, Dr. Manuel Cub= ero del Castillo-Olivares, Paul Thomason Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 122 932, Sitz der Gesellschaft:= Unterfoehring ------------ From Guan.Deng@KabelDeutschland.de Wed Jul 22 09:19:00 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 8631F3A6827 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:19:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.961 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.571, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 ZyrN+8Kq2O64 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from antivir.kabeldeutschland.de (antivir.kabeldeutschland.de [83.169.191.241]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1678C3A6929 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qrz2023.kabeldeutschland.de [10.32.12.99] by antivir.kabeldeutschland.de id BO1WBY9W outgoing id BO1WBY9W; 22 Jul 2009 09:50:56 +0200 Received: from QRZ4282.viola.local (qrz4282.kabeldeutschland.de [10.32.29.49]) by qrz2023.kabeldeutschland.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n6M7stIR021235 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:54:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from QRZ4287.viola.local ([10.32.29.51]) by QRZ4282.viola.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:56:53 +0200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:56:52 +0200 Message-ID: <86F81850BABA434A9E2F6FEF592816E903D4A017@QRZ4287.viola.local> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4Yq7xkYSUmIQ+CCPioa0SVwzABGmuUA References: From: "Deng, Guan" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2009 07:56:53.0882 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA4CA5A0:01CA0AA1] Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft 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, 22 Jul 2009 16:19:00 -0000 Yes=20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Su= san Hares Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juli 2009 00:15 An: idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Betreff: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGd= raft We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG docum= ent.=20 Please send your votes by 8/3/09.=20 Sue and John=20 -- Kabel Deutschland bietet Ihnen Fernsehen, Internet und Telefonie aus eine= r Hand. Informieren Sie sich ueber unsere Produkte unter www.kabeldeutsch= land.de Diese E-Mail und etwaige Anhaenge enthalten vertrauliche und/oder rechtli= ch geschuetzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind, = benachrichtigen Sie bitte den Absender und vernichten Sie anschliessend d= iese Mail und die Anlagen. -- Kabel Deutschland GmbH Betastr. 6-8 85774 Unterfoehring Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dr. Adrian von Hammerstein, Erik Adams, Dr. Manuel Cub= ero del Castillo-Olivares, Paul Thomason Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. Heinz Riesenhuber Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 145 837, Sitz der Gesellschaft:= Unterfoehring ------------ Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG Betastr. 6-8 85774 Unterfoehring Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRA 83902, Sitz der Gesellschaft: U= nterfoehring Komplementaerin: Kabel Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, Amtsgericht Muenchen= , HRB 145 835, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Unterfoehring Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dr. Adrian von Hammerstein, Erik Adams, Dr. Manuel Cub= ero del Castillo-Olivares, Paul Thomason ------------ Kabel Deutschland Breitband Services GmbH Betastr. 6-8 85774 Unterfoehring Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dr. Adrian von Hammerstein, Erik Adams, Dr. Manuel Cub= ero del Castillo-Olivares, Paul Thomason Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 122 932, Sitz der Gesellschaft:= Unterfoehring ------------ From curtis@occnc.com Wed Jul 22 21:25:38 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 83C623A69E9 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:25:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=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 SNwFijEBlOLA for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9A03A694A for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n6N4MgYa021490; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:22:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com) Message-Id: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> To: "John G. Scudder" From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:57:23 EDT." <56CC1BBE-4437-4FA8-85A6-D4E3E9A9B8C6@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:22:42 -0400 Sender: curtis@occnc.com Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:25:38 -0000 In message <56CC1BBE-4437-4FA8-85A6-D4E3E9A9B8C6@juniper.net> "John G. Scudder" writes: > > On Jul 21, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > Susan Hares wrote: > >> We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath- > >> selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG document. Please send your > >> votes by 8/3/09. > >> Sue and John > > > > > > The draft that I just fetched (as -01) says: > > > > This Internet-Draft, > > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt, has > > expired, and has been deleted from the Internet-Drafts directory. > > > > I'm not sure how we can take a "vote" with the draft unavailable for > > review. > > A fair point. > > Rajiv, can you please refresh the draft? > > Curtis, my advanced search engine skills enabled me to find http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00 > , which should take care of the practical issue if you don't want to > wait until the draft gets refreshed (which I assume will only happen > after the IETF due to the pre-IETF draft publication freeze). > > --John Fair enough. You're a wizard with that there searchie thingie. The first rule just seems obvious and out of scope for RFC4271. Is the first rule saying much more than "If there is more than one IGP instance, pick the right one"? If so is that too obvious to need to be stated? The second rule is a "ping the next hop" rule, or more correctly check the OAM status. It strikes me that if we did the analogous thing for BGP and IP routers, we'd be suggesting that a ping of the next hop be performed just in case a router along the way wasn't working correctly (which in the very early 1990s was a distinct possibility, but I digress). The "right answer" for IP then was to make sure IP routers really do work at the IP/IGP level, and not triggerred by a BGP prefix reference to a particular next hop. Based on the examples, it looks like the problemm areas are in L3VPN using MPLS and LDP. But what if the BGP router is one more hop back in the IGP on the left CE side of the diagrams? If so it may not be aware of the MPLS LSP. Do things break then? Are providers really serving up broken L2TP, GRE, or L3 VPNs and if so is this the right venue to be addressing the problem? Are we better off working around this sort of brokenness in BGP or fixing it in the underlying offender (L2TP, GRE, or L3 VPNs, or more correctly someone's broken implementation of them)? Curtis From raszuk@cisco.com Thu Jul 23 00:14:25 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 12BD93A68CB for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:14:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.734 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.265, 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 LkTkzKByG4l5 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:14:24 -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 2C5AC3A6894 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:14:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAOSpZ0qrR7MV/2dsb2JhbAC4RIEUCAGHCJEPBYQN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,252,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="352251843" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2009 07:13:16 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6N7DGwl014955; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:13:16 -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 n6N7DG1v020966; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:13:16 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); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:13:15 -0700 Received: from [10.21.65.133] ([10.21.65.133]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:13:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:13:11 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: curtis@occnc.com References: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> In-Reply-To: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2009 07:13:15.0385 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BF77690:01CA0B65] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2464; t=1248333196; x=1249197196; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; 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]=20draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-se lection-criteria=20as=20IDR=0A=20WG=09draft |Sender:=20; bh=Uh9AmYOGUGNW8ftj4Iz8Rh6cceY62PmL4BjKq/QM0tk=; b=QIZNW73Bh8ObTKFrcBRtLA8BLOyc8X0tDa67hbTdsSMmzIZPKxX/MFjxfC 5Z1nAy1GPCotBgjQtAFlBYyFrn53K23OzIU2LAraC3s3OqzpU10t6IS1FoCZ fC2Uvi1M2Ziz4YIZCy63S5MOXfRpFRPSwG3HzNoM4v/VWjTlBx7w0=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:14:25 -0000 Hi Curtis, I think your assessment of the draft is right. The original issue has been raised by the problem of considering next hop as valid and reachable IP reachability wise without any correlation with MPLS LSP to such next hop which was a must and a prerequisite for some applications to work. In my opinion this is a valid problem, but this is not a BGP issue. Underlying transport (for example MPLS LDP or MPLS-TE) should only expose valid and reachable LSPs to it's RIB so when BGP does route validation and resolution it would already be able to choose from valid and reachable next hops. That would result in no changes to BGP both protocol and implementation wise. So I would recommend to move this draft to mpls wg as essentially only this transport exhibits the problem described in the spec. Cheers, R. > Fair enough. You're a wizard with that there searchie thingie. > > The first rule just seems obvious and out of scope for RFC4271. Is > the first rule saying much more than "If there is more than one IGP > instance, pick the right one"? If so is that too obvious to need to > be stated? > > The second rule is a "ping the next hop" rule, or more correctly check > the OAM status. > > It strikes me that if we did the analogous thing for BGP and IP > routers, we'd be suggesting that a ping of the next hop be performed > just in case a router along the way wasn't working correctly (which in > the very early 1990s was a distinct possibility, but I digress). The > "right answer" for IP then was to make sure IP routers really do work > at the IP/IGP level, and not triggerred by a BGP prefix reference to a > particular next hop. > > Based on the examples, it looks like the problemm areas are in L3VPN > using MPLS and LDP. But what if the BGP router is one more hop back > in the IGP on the left CE side of the diagrams? If so it may not be > aware of the MPLS LSP. Do things break then? > > Are providers really serving up broken L2TP, GRE, or L3 VPNs and if so > is this the right venue to be addressing the problem? Are we better > off working around this sort of brokenness in BGP or fixing it in the > underlying offender (L2TP, GRE, or L3 VPNs, or more correctly > someone's broken implementation of them)? > > Curtis > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > From bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com Thu Jul 23 02:51:00 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 6807D3A6839 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:51:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=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 an0Dg8DXbdfM for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from R-MAIL1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CDE3A67A2 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:37:05 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:37:48 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft Thread-Index: AcoLbON8ipcwj6XTTv++LRyW0yil9AACxi4A References: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> From: To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2009 09:37:05.0773 (UTC) FILETIME=[241429D0:01CA0B79] Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 23 Jul 2009 09:51:00 -0000 Hi Rajiv, all, Following Robert's comment regarding MPLS (wg) dependency, in the section 2 "Route Resolvability Condition - Modification" what about adding the following point between 1) (use the right NH availability info) and 2) (use OAM to check): SHOULD use LDP ordered mode (rather than independent) to check the end to end control plane status. (then forwarding plane status may optionally be checked by the "OAM data-plane liveness mechanisms" that you currently propose in 2) ) Thanks, Regards, Bruno > From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk >=20 > Hi Curtis, >=20 > I think your assessment of the draft is right. The original issue has > been raised by the problem of considering next hop as valid and > reachable IP reachability wise without any correlation with MPLS LSP to > such next hop which was a must and a prerequisite for some applications > to work. >=20 > In my opinion this is a valid problem, but this is not a BGP issue. >=20 > Underlying transport (for example MPLS LDP or MPLS-TE) should only > expose valid and reachable LSPs to it's RIB so when BGP does route > validation and resolution it would already be able to choose from valid > and reachable next hops. That would result in no changes to BGP both > protocol and implementation wise. >=20 > So I would recommend to move this draft to mpls wg as essentially only > this transport exhibits the problem described in the spec. >=20 > Cheers, > R. >=20 >=20 > > Fair enough. You're a wizard with that there searchie thingie. > > > > The first rule just seems obvious and out of scope for RFC4271. Is > > the first rule saying much more than "If there is more than one IGP > > instance, pick the right one"? If so is that too obvious to need to > > be stated? > > > > The second rule is a "ping the next hop" rule, or more correctly check > > the OAM status. > > > > It strikes me that if we did the analogous thing for BGP and IP > > routers, we'd be suggesting that a ping of the next hop be performed > > just in case a router along the way wasn't working correctly (which in > > the very early 1990s was a distinct possibility, but I digress). The > > "right answer" for IP then was to make sure IP routers really do work > > at the IP/IGP level, and not triggerred by a BGP prefix reference to a > > particular next hop. > > > > Based on the examples, it looks like the problemm areas are in L3VPN > > using MPLS and LDP. But what if the BGP router is one more hop back > > in the IGP on the left CE side of the diagrams? If so it may not be > > aware of the MPLS LSP. Do things break then? > > > > Are providers really serving up broken L2TP, GRE, or L3 VPNs and if so > > is this the right venue to be addressing the problem? Are we better > > off working around this sort of brokenness in BGP or fixing it in the > > underlying offender (L2TP, GRE, or L3 VPNs, or more correctly > > someone's broken implementation of them)? > > > > Curtis > > _______________________________________________ > > Idr mailing list > > Idr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net Thu Jul 23 03:11:15 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 A582F3A6894 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:11:15 -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 7OoaxWqjnADV for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softy.de.easynet.net (softy.de.easynet.net [194.163.250.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35D93A6887 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe01kgham.de.easynet.net ([194.163.250.17] helo=fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net) by softy.de.easynet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MTvDW-0003ra-It; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:08:02 +0200 Received: from ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net ([10.43.3.3]) by fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:08:02 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:08:01 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft thread-index: AcoLZTia0po4va2SQ6+0hswoPONwBAAFte1A References: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> From: "Ilya Varlashkin" To: , "idr List" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2009 10:08:02.0763 (UTC) FILETIME=[76EE59B0:01CA0B7D] Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 23 Jul 2009 10:11:15 -0000 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] Im=20 > Auftrag von Robert Raszuk > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2009 09:13 > An: curtis@occnc.com > Cc: idr List > Betreff: Re: [Idr]=20 > draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft >=20 > Hi Curtis, >=20 > I think your assessment of the draft is right. The original=20 > issue has been raised by the problem of considering next hop=20 > as valid and reachable IP reachability wise without any=20 > correlation with MPLS LSP to such next hop which was a must=20 > and a prerequisite for some applications to work. >=20 > In my opinion this is a valid problem, but this is not a BGP issue. >=20 > Underlying transport (for example MPLS LDP or MPLS-TE) should=20 > only expose valid and reachable LSPs to it's RIB so when BGP=20 Robert, in some scenarios (e.g Inter-AS MPLS stuff) labels are distributed by = BGP itself. Also, LDP may have received all correct info from the = neighbors, but failed to install it into forwarding plane (either due to = hardware failure or a software bug). Having experienced this with = routers from two different manufacturers, I believe it would be really = benefical if BGP could perform a bit more extended checks rather than = just looking into control plane. I understand that issue is more of = "local type" (e.g. hardware failure) rather than protocol itself, but = considering reality (bugs do happen and hardware does fail) it's very = desirable that BGP specs at least encourage implementors to make more = effort in validating next-hop. And this is why I believe IDR is correct = WG for this draft. Cheers, iLya From raszuk@cisco.com Thu Jul 23 03:46:42 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 90D5E3A696D for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:46:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.167 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, 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 Y4ucxTzD6upl for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:46:41 -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 C38873A693B for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAEjcZ0qrR7PD/2dsb2JhbAC3I4EUCAGHCJB/BYQN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,253,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="352362444" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2009 10:45:54 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6NAjs1R002142; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:45:54 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6NAjs8C029040; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:45:54 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:45:54 -0700 Received: from [10.21.148.11] ([10.21.148.11]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:45:53 -0700 Message-ID: <4A683F5E.906@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:45:50 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Cisco Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilya Varlashkin References: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2009 10:45:54.0103 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0C15470:01CA0B82] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2118; t=1248345954; x=1249209954; 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=20AW=3A=20[Idr]=20draft-asati-idr-bgp-bes tpath-selection-criteria=20as=0A=20IDR=20WG=09draft |Sender:=20; bh=GwiNmgMdlZ6jkiQHoXacIcnkOLKS39D4Uet8vIIab+s=; b=GgF7gsPNSuLzIOjSgz3kAtX4jvpEtwhDwm/3VvKcUJYGE+Klp+6YBcdHhB THzjOW8sfIu9nztLYJEkjDIYICQ1dwPYlXSiVzCuIOi0ecsEblFZXIuK9p6E U9fRQU7t/6; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:46:42 -0000 Ilya, Are you really recommending that each application (one of them being BGP) which may use underlying transport of LSPs to continuously perform it's own OAM check over such LSPs ? I really think it is a data plane OAM thing which should be done in full abstraction to routing protocols or label distribution protocols before such LSP is inserted in RIB as a means to reach destination XYZ. Cheers, R. >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] Im >> Auftrag von Robert Raszuk >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2009 09:13 >> An: curtis@occnc.com >> Cc: idr List >> Betreff: Re: [Idr] >> draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft >> >> Hi Curtis, >> >> I think your assessment of the draft is right. The original >> issue has been raised by the problem of considering next hop >> as valid and reachable IP reachability wise without any >> correlation with MPLS LSP to such next hop which was a must >> and a prerequisite for some applications to work. >> >> In my opinion this is a valid problem, but this is not a BGP issue. >> >> Underlying transport (for example MPLS LDP or MPLS-TE) should >> only expose valid and reachable LSPs to it's RIB so when BGP > > Robert, > > in some scenarios (e.g Inter-AS MPLS stuff) labels are distributed by BGP itself. Also, LDP may have received all correct info from the neighbors, but failed to install it into forwarding plane (either due to hardware failure or a software bug). Having experienced this with routers from two different manufacturers, I believe it would be really benefical if BGP could perform a bit more extended checks rather than just looking into control plane. I understand that issue is more of "local type" (e.g. hardware failure) rather than protocol itself, but considering reality (bugs do happen and hardware does fail) it's very desirable that BGP specs at least encourage implementors to make more effort in validating next-hop. And this is why I believe IDR is correct WG for this draft. > > Cheers, > iLya > From Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net Thu Jul 23 05:02:42 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 37A583A6968 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:02:42 -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 N81t9hq5NSEf for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softy.de.easynet.net (softy.de.easynet.net [194.163.250.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EC63A6856 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe01kgham.de.easynet.net ([194.163.250.17] helo=fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net) by softy.de.easynet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MTwza-0002CR-HU; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:01:46 +0200 Received: from ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net ([10.43.3.3]) by fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:01:46 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:01:45 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A683F5E.906@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft thread-index: AcoLgsL6YtDig1zUSJSaYltxKDBXLgABgiSA References: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> <4A683F5E.906@cisco.com> From: "Ilya Varlashkin" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2009 12:01:46.0794 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A5ED8A0:01CA0B8D] Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 23 Jul 2009 12:02:42 -0000 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Are you really recommending that each application (one of them being > BGP) which may use underlying transport of LSPs to=20 > continuously perform it's own OAM check over such LSPs ? >=20 Not exactly. There are two things BGP could potentially do:=20 - first it could consult local forwarding plane to check whether = next-hop info has been installed there. - second, in some cases BGP could rely on OAM (e.g. BFD) for verifying = next-hop availability. It may sound as not very scaleable, it could be = used for example to check availability of critical exit points such as = major IXP or uplinks.=20 Cheers, iLya From mikeb@gblx.net Thu Jul 23 09:52:53 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 38ECE3A6B96 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:52:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 iQMopS801Va3 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.disturbed.org (host-216-9-185-208.orbitelcom.com [216.9.185.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895D63A6B83 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.disturbed.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pinky.disturbed.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n6NGpXZT093304; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:51:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mikeb@gblx.net) Received: (from mikeb@localhost) by pinky.disturbed.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n6NGpW19093303; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:51:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mikeb@gblx.net) X-Authentication-Warning: pinky.disturbed.org: mikeb set sender to mikeb@gblx.net using -f Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:51:32 -0700 From: Mike Benjamin To: Curtis Villamizar Message-ID: <20090723165132.GA80638@gblx.net> References: <56CC1BBE-4437-4FA8-85A6-D4E3E9A9B8C6@juniper.net> <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 23 Jul 2009 16:52:53 -0000 On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:22:42AM -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: : : The first rule just seems obvious and out of scope for RFC4271. Is : the first rule saying much more than "If there is more than one IGP : instance, pick the right one"? If so is that too obvious to need to : be stated? The first rule is stating that if the nexthop lookup resolves to a path that has no knowledge of the route, it should not be considered. For example, two LERs that do not exchange their BGP table with the LSR. In the event of an LSP failure, BGP still resolves the nexthop, via an IGP path, installs the route, and the device blackholes anything destined for it. The mechanism is stating that BGP should be given the knowledge of where to look for a valid nexthop. IGP sourced RIB entries can be considered to establish the BGP session, but should not be used to resolve the nexthop if that path has no knowledge of how to get there. --mikeb : : Curtis : _______________________________________________ : Idr mailing list : Idr@ietf.org : https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr -- Mike Benjamin - +1-602-744-3403 mikeb@gblx.net - Development Engineering Global Crossing - Phoenix, USA From mikeb@gblx.net Thu Jul 23 10:17:46 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 D19043A6B77 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:17:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.512 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 KO0O6FZEYmLi for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.disturbed.org (host-216-9-185-208.orbitelcom.com [216.9.185.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032C23A6AD3 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.disturbed.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pinky.disturbed.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n6NHGu72093430; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:16:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mikeb@gblx.net) Received: (from mikeb@localhost) by pinky.disturbed.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n6NHGu2O093428; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:16:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mikeb@gblx.net) X-Authentication-Warning: pinky.disturbed.org: mikeb set sender to mikeb@gblx.net using -f Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:16:56 -0700 From: Mike Benjamin To: Robert Raszuk Message-ID: <20090723171656.GB80638@gblx.net> References: <200907230422.n6N4MgYa021490@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A680D87.80501@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: idr List Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WG draft 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, 23 Jul 2009 17:17:46 -0000 On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:13:11AM -0700, Robert Raszuk wrote: : : I think your assessment of the draft is right. The original issue : has been raised by the problem of considering next hop as valid : and reachable IP reachability wise without any correlation with : MPLS LSP to such next hop which was a must and a prerequisite for : some applications to work. : : In my opinion this is a valid problem, but this is not a BGP : issue. : : Underlying transport (for example MPLS LDP or MPLS-TE) should : only expose valid and reachable LSPs to it's RIB so when BGP does : route validation and resolution it would already be able to : choose from valid and reachable next hops. That would result in : no changes to BGP both protocol and implementation wise. Only exposing valid and reachable LSPs to the RIB would push the OAM aspect of problem #2 back to MPLS if you are using RSVP-TE or LDP for label exchange. As Ilya has pointed out, BGP is also used for label exchange, meaning you've also pushed the requirement to BGP. Issue #1 also still exists due to the IGP presenting the route. The "fix" currently would be to not use IGP learned addresses for BGP peering. This means things like static routes tied to LSPs that don't seem like the correct answer to me. The scenario that presents this problem is not isolated to L3VPNs. A network that uses IGP only for control plane in order to establish; BGP for route exchange, and another protocol for transport (MPLS/L2TP/etc..), also presents the problem. In such a network design, informing BGP that that only the transport protocol installed routes may be used to resolve nexthops would be required. --mikeb : So I would recommend to move this draft to mpls wg as essentially : only this transport exhibits the problem described in the spec. : : Cheers, : R. : : : >Fair enough. You're a wizard with that there searchie thingie. : > : >The first rule just seems obvious and out of scope for RFC4271. : >Is : >the first rule saying much more than "If there is more than one : >IGP : >instance, pick the right one"? If so is that too obvious to : >need to : >be stated? : > : >The second rule is a "ping the next hop" rule, or more correctly : >check : >the OAM status. : > : >It strikes me that if we did the analogous thing for BGP and IP : >routers, we'd be suggesting that a ping of the next hop be : >performed : >just in case a router along the way wasn't working correctly : >(which in : >the very early 1990s was a distinct possibility, but I digress). : >The : >"right answer" for IP then was to make sure IP routers really do : >work : >at the IP/IGP level, and not triggerred by a BGP prefix : >reference to a : >particular next hop. : > : >Based on the examples, it looks like the problemm areas are in : >L3VPN : >using MPLS and LDP. But what if the BGP router is one more hop : >back : >in the IGP on the left CE side of the diagrams? If so it may : >not be : >aware of the MPLS LSP. Do things break then? : > : >Are providers really serving up broken L2TP, GRE, or L3 VPNs and : >if so : >is this the right venue to be addressing the problem? Are we : >better : >off working around this sort of brokenness in BGP or fixing it : >in the : >underlying offender (L2TP, GRE, or L3 VPNs, or more correctly : >someone's broken implementation of them)? : > : >Curtis : >_______________________________________________ : >Idr mailing list : >Idr@ietf.org : >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr : > : : _______________________________________________ : Idr mailing list : Idr@ietf.org : https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr -- Mike Benjamin - +1-602-744-3403 mikeb@gblx.net - Development Engineering Global Crossing - Phoenix, USA From Lukas.KRATTIGER@nextiraone.ch Wed Jul 22 22:31:07 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 670EE3A6C6F for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:31:07 -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 MjSisOIvJOHY for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.nextiraone.ch (mail2.nextiraone.ch [194.230.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654E63A6832 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:31:05 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5685"; a="9534151" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,251,1246831200"; d="scan'208";a="9534151" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:29:36 +0200 Message-ID: <31228311EA1CC44CB456BD47102BCD9A01193087@CHMAIZH07.ch.nextiraone-eu.ned> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft Thread-Index: AcoJh4Yq7xkYSUmIQ+CCPioa0SVwzABzws/E References: From: "KRATTIGER Lukas" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2009 05:30:04.0807 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2183970:01CA0B56] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:54:19 -0700 Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR WGdraft 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, 23 Jul 2009 05:34:34 -0000 yes =20 ________________________________ Von: idr-bounces@ietf.org im Auftrag von Susan Hares Gesendet: Di 21.07.2009 00:14 An: idr@ietf.org Cc: yakov@juniper.net; John G. Scudder Betreff: [Idr] draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria as IDR = WGdraft We have received a request to accept draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-00.txt as an IDR WG = document. Please send your votes by 8/3/09. Sue and John From root@core3.amsl.com Mon Jul 27 11:15:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 36A083A69C7; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:15:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090727181502.36A083A69C7@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action:draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-01.txt 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, 27 Jul 2009 18:15:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP Author(s) : D. Walton, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-01.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2009-07-27 In this document we propose a BGP extension that allows the advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the extension is that each path is identified by a path identifier in addition to the address prefix. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-07-27110527.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Jul 28 04:45:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id A83D43A6CF0; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090728114501.A83D43A6CF0@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D Action:draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-01.txt 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, 28 Jul 2009 11:45:01 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Revisions to the BGP 'Minimum Route Advertisement Interval' Author(s) : P. Jakma Filename : draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-01.txt Pages : 4 Date : 2009-07-28 This document revises the specification of the BGP MRAI timer, by deprecating the previously recommended values and by allowing for withdrawals to be exempted from the MRAI. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-07-28043230.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From jgs@juniper.net Tue Jul 28 08:10:33 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 D2D4D3A6C8E for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:10:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.373 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.226, 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 xdurxxq5N1sU for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12453A6986 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSm8U6YQF9oJnkWcOPwFcrwbtftCXnYwh@postini.com; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:10:34 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, 28 Jul 2009 07:59:28 -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); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:59:28 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp55.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.132]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:59:28 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:59:27 -0700 Received: from jgs-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net (jgs-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net [172.23.4.135]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id n6SExQd61096 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:59:26 -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: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:59:25 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2009 14:59:27.0170 (UTC) FILETIME=[0083E220:01CA0F94] Subject: [Idr] Scribe for Thursday's meeting? 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, 28 Jul 2009 15:10:33 -0000 Folks, We don't yet have a volunteer for note-taking on Thursday. Kidding aside, the meeting won't start until we have one, so please consider helping everyone out by volunteering. Thanks, --John & Sue From bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com Thu Jul 30 16:14:37 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 0001E3A68F3 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:14:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] 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 yRu+nQRoiJnj for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from R-MAIL1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2AA3A6CFC for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:14:09 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:14:55 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RFC 4360 clarification (BGP Extended Communities Attribute) Thread-Index: AcoRa4ytfM/otezqTW+uSyAe3ViWhQ== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2009 23:14:09.0548 (UTC) FILETIME=[716AD4C0:01CA116B] Subject: [Idr] RFC 4360 clarification (BGP Extended Communities Attribute) 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, 30 Jul 2009 23:14:37 -0000 Hi all, We have a clarification question regarding RFC 4360. Section "6. Operations" states that "If a route has a non-transitivity extended community, then before advertising the route across the Autonomous System boundary the community SHOULD be removed from the route." Is it compliant with the specification to: -a- set / add, on the outbound policy of an eBGP session, a non transitive extended community? -b- expect that the eBGP peer will not remove it to enforce the non-transitivity? It seems to us that this is compliant:=20 -a- seems to be inlined with the operation of well know communities defined in RFC 1997 where the advertisement restrictions applies when BGP receive a route with this community, not when it advertise it. -b- RFC 4360 does not ask the eBGP to enforce the non-transitivity (and besides, non-transivity is a SHOULD, not a MUST) - Could you please correct or confirm this? - If your BGP implementation removes a non-transitive community received over an eBGP session, could you please tell us? (either privately or on the mailing list). Thanks, Regards, Bruno