On 16 Nov 2012, at 04:10, Shane Amante wrote: >> is that better? I'm really asking whether or not there is a problem >> and if we (ietf in general) can get a solution (or even the >> requirements for a solution?) defined... > > Yes, there is a (big) operational problem wrt route-leaks. > > Yes, we (IETF in general) should work toward a solution. As I stated > previously, I hope we remain open-minded as to the solution space and do not > pigeon-hole ourselves into thinking that one must exist inside BGP, either > solely or at all.
Hi GROW, All, I would support the comments that Shane made here - essentially, this is an operational concern, and we should at least properly document what the problem is. If we can use this problem statement to work towards a solution, then this would be a good aim. However, I would urge that we consider the operational complexity, manageability and overhead of any suggested solutions. A number of the mechanisms in the sidr space have significant cost of implementation, which I'm not sure is wholly being considered, and may present a challenge for deployment of these solutions. Specifically regarding route leaks, I have some concerns around the ease of classification of relationships between networks (that I raised in idr when this was discussed) -- whilst it may be convenient to consider there to be clearly defined categories in this space, in the real world, I do not think that it is as clear cut. My view is that GROW is the right place to begin this work within the ietf -- however, some consultation with the wider operational community (e.g., NANOG etc.) is likely to be advantageous to tap into the best sources of knowledge on this matter. A solution specified without considering those operators which are not represented in the ietf is likely to be limited in its deployment. Cheers, r. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
