* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Grow Status Pages

Global Routing Operations (Active WG)
Ops Area: Ignas Bagdonas, Warren Kumari | 2003-May-02 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-103 grow minutes

Session 2018-11-05 1120-1220: Chitlada 3 - Audio stream - grow chatroom

Minutes

minutes-103-grow-00 minutes



          ############################
          * Discuss Current Draughts
          draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out
          draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib
          draft-ietf-grow-rpki-as-cones
          draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior
          draft-scudder-grow-bmp-registries-change
          #########################################
          
          Randy Bush: I suggest to the people working on AS-Cones to talk to
          someone who knows security to have some guidance.
          
          There were no more questions nor comments
          
          #########################################################
          * Solution for Route Leaks Using BGP Communities - sriram
          #########################################################
          
          Sriram
          
          Ruediger Volk: This looks easy.  Large communities can do it.  Other
          things are complicated and we don't like it.  For Large communities to
          make sure the propagation works the right way, we will need documentation
          giving advice on how to handle this in the local policy configurations.
          Without this advice, you are not getting an idea on how it's going to
          be handled.  With Large commiunities available for things like this,
          I think providing some advice on how to handle it in policies is good.
          Consider also what Randy Bush is going to discuss later.  It's a matter
          of time that 100% of the networks will be able to deal with them.
          Everything done to add features to large communities will take more time.
          
          Jacob: Someone will have to configure large communities for them to work.
          If you're relying on standard software to pass on large communities,
          things might be tricky.
          
          Sriram: We are hoping that the leaking ASn would let large communities
          pass.
          
          Job:  There's still no weay for IANA to register well known large
          communities numbers.  We will need a document for that.
          
          Ruediger Volk:  The IDR chairs can request the global administrator AS.
          That will go into the registry then.  My take is that working more with
          LC we will need it more and more.
          
          Job:  Thank you.
          
          Sriram: Thank you.  Please send feedback on the list.
          
          There were no more questions nor comments.
          
          ###################################
          * Communities Are EveryWear - Randy
          ###################################
          
          Randi Bush presented the slides.
          
          Jared Mauch:  I'm curious about LC seeming to propagate much further
          than normal communities.  Did you study it ?
          Randy: No
          Jared: Iss there any recommendation in the document about it ?
          Randy: No
          
          Chris: Are you asking Randy to write a document with recommendations ?
          Jared:  Shall we align the behaviour with normal , extended large
          communities ?  do we want to make recommendations on how to strip
          communities ?  Juniper has the ability to do so, arbitrarily matching
          routes with a value in the TLV.  Maybe we should give guidance to
          operators on what options to have.
          Randy:  Good idea.
          Ruediger:  I think some documentation about good practice on what BGP
          information is adequate would be a good thing.  My view would be that
          there might be agreement on what to exchange between operators, but it's
          someone's responsibility (mic was cut.)
          
          Time was out.  No more questions nor comments allowed.
          
          ############################################################
          * Draft-ietf-grow-bmp-(local|adj)-rib(?:out) - Paolo Lucente
          ############################################################
          
          Paolo Lucente presented the slides.
          
          Humming for last call was considered successful.
          
          (I missed the person who talked at this point and what he said.
          My etherpad session disconnected.)
          
          There were no more questions nor comments.
          
          ###################################################
          * draft-gu-grow-bmp-route-leak-detection - Yunan Gu
          ###################################################
          
          Yunan Gu Presented the slides.
          
          Jared Mauch: We are using BMP to validate our routing policy decisions and
          validate when we're leaking routes where it's not intended.  You're trying
          to catch what Qrator labs have suggested to look at.  There are cases
          where we route space internally, but we don't want it to leak outside.
          A document like this is incredibly valuable for us.
          
          YUnan: Thanks
          
          Alexander Azimov: What are you getting in advance in terms of BGP leak
          prevention ?  You can detect but not prevent leaks with this method.
          Yunan:  Correct.
          Alexander:  You could have policy configured in your router.  With this
          document, you have to configure all your peering in your system.
          This does not simplify the work of preventing route leask.
          Yunan: Correct.
          
          There were no more questions nor comments.
          
          ########################
          * Living Documents - Job
          ########################
          
          (can't figure out the name): This is a good idea.  I was asked to look
          at the IGPs, and we were
          
          Can you start the ball rolling on this ? It would be immensely helpful.
          People could draw and add content.  Valid security issues could be
          presented there.
          
          Alvaro Retana:  I think this is a great idea.  I wish more people
          would look at living documents because they are more useful.  What more
          than a draft do you need ?  A draft could be considered as the way of
          achieving this.
          
          Job:  If you look at the optics of a draft, they're different from an RFC.
          The logistics of a draft are different. The URLs change, but we want
          something stable.  We want something slightly different.
          
          (Didn't get the name):  I would be in favour of having something
          long-lived as a standard.
          
          Tim Bruijnzeels:  I worked on documents explaining how the RIPE NCC
          Validator and implementation works.  I'd like to see this.
          
          Jeff Tentsura:  I would like to be able to normatively reference this
          document.  It wouldn't work if we keep it as a draft.
          
          Joel Jaeggli:  I think
          
          
          We don't have a way to discuss about consensus for a document with.
          It seems the only requirement we have here is to have metadata to
          reference the document.
          
          Warren Kumari:  I've heard people wanting something that's an RFC but that
          is not an RFC.  Something in-between.  You could do it as a WG document,
          calling last-call every now and then, but that would be strange.
          
          Ruediger Volk:  It seems to me that considering consensus every now and
          then could be a broken idea.  Having a precise versioning of official
          points could and should be done.  I have the concern that there are things
          that are fundamental and never change, while there are things that are
          currently discussed and are moving.  I think going for a living document
          will tend to expose what is being discuss, while the fundamental stable
          long-term things will not be presented the right way for newcomers,
          which should be focusing on them first.
          
          Job:  Thank you for your feedback.  We are attacking two problems at the
          same time: exploring live documents as a concept, and routing security
          explained to newcomers.  Let's face these one at a time.  We will meet
          tomorrow and then report to the list.  We should start with a document
          soon.
          
          Jeff Tentsura:  We started an effort a year ago to be able to reference
          non-IETF documents in IETF drafts.  This could be interesting for this
          live document.
          
          Job: Please, email me the link.
          
          The session ended.
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/grow/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -