Hi Jim,
Yes the topic is related to how multiple ASes under one administrative
umbrella can operate BGP.
But I must say that there are two fundamental approaches:
a) the one as you described in the OAD draft defining the ATTR_SET_STACK
attribute - sort of being an Eiffle Tower of what needs to be carried
across.
b) the other option is to decouple the problem into two sub functions:
b.1 - make those ASNs operating under same administration aware of
each other by cfg
b.2 - make new transitive rule to allow passing under same
administration.
I just proposed b.
Jakob proposed c) which is yet one more option to define set of reserved
values (could be ASN or a prefix for easy ACL) to indicate within given
attribute the scope of propagation when ingress policy allows. I find it
much more complex and error prone as compared with (b)
Thx,
R.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:53 PM UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com> wrote:
> *Not sure if the intention here intersects with what I had in mind in
> 2012.. Pradosh, Saikat and I created a draft that introduced the notion of
> OAD ( One Administrative Domain ). The challenge from my point of view was
> and still is how to treat non-transitive attributes as transitive across
> the set of AS domains that “belong” to the same administrative domain. An
> example of this is the application of Local-Pref across a set of disparate
> As domains that a customers VPN spans.*
>
>
>
> *We are tackling a similar problem when spanning AS domains that are
> reflective of differing services.. i.e a customer VPN spans EVPN and 2547
> signaling domains.*
>
>
>
> *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-uttaro-idr-oad-01
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-uttaro-idr-oad-01> *
>
>
>
> *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-02
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-02> *
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> * Jim Uttaro*
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Robert Raszuk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 08, 2020 10:41 AM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf. org <i...@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [Idr] XXCs
>
>
>
> Hey Jakob,
>
>
>
> So just an idea - if we are to redefine transitivity for XXC why don't we
> forget about all of this ASN reservations and simply instead of two
> transitive bits define three.
>
>
>
> Make 3rd bit to mean transitive only under set of ASes under same
> administrative control ?
>
>
>
> You still need a knob to know which ASNs are to be treated as same
> administration. And with that no change to community syntax is needed at
> all - LOCAL_ASN:NUMBER
>
>
>
> Done !
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
