Well described, Chris. I agree this work is relevant, appropriate and useful.
Tony On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Christopher Morrow < [email protected]> wrote: > as in the room, I'd hope to focus on-list on: > "What is a route-leak?" > > I thought that a taxonomy: > "a scheme of classification." > > of what route-leaks/hijacks are would be helpful. It's possible that > we could call all 'hijacks', 'mis-originations', 'valley-free > violations' the same thing: "Route Leaks"... but having a definition > and a method to view these from either a direct neighbor OR (ideally) > 2 as-hops away would be much better. > > Sriram/doug's document talks about 4 types of leak, of these 1, 2, 3 > all basically look the same to me, the original set is: > 1 - prefix-hijack with path to legitimate origin > 2 - u-turn with more specific prefix > 3 - u-turn with full-prefix > 4 - internal-prefix-leak > > To me this sounds like: > 1, 2, 3 are all saying the same thing: "Someone leaked all or part > of my prefix, but provided transit to me anyway" > > and 4 is mostly lost to me... though I suppose it might mean: "my peer > leaked my prefix to his transits" > > The goal for this work really ought to be: > define route-leak > > Then the next follow-on is: > "Do operations folks view this thing as defined to be a problem? > should someone fix that problem?" > > -Chris > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Tony Tauber <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Jared Mauch <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Communities are not sent by default (eg Cisco). Route leaks come for > free > >> on Cisco too. > > > > > > Right, I meant "intentionally implemented" communities. > > Anyway, so the idea is to introduce a new knob that's on by default and > > which is more resistant to breaking off? > > > > Not so compelling to me as to warrant a wholesale protocol extension. > > > > Tony > > > >> > >> On Jul 25, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Tony Tauber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> How is this different than tagging with communities today? > >> In either case, the provider's correct action on the semantics is needed > >> (and can go awry through misconfiguration). > >> > >> Tony > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GROW mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > > >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
