On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:16:55PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
With this BCP Internet-Draft we hope to draw some attention to good
practises which can be applied by IP networks or IXPs to mitigate
negative impact caused by maintenance operations on lower layer
networks. The idea is to promote the concept of breaking the
control-plane in a controlled fashion, before actually breaking the
data-plane.
I like the concept.
Wording-wise, there is room for misunderstanding in the current version,
2.2.1:
2.2.1. Packet Filter Considerations
The packet filter should be designed and specified in a way that:
o only affect link-local BGP traffic i.e. forming part of the
control plane of the system described, rather than multihop BGP
which merely transits
it says "link-local", but what it wants is not "fe80::" but "the prefixes
the intermediate network uses for on-link peering" (plus, maybe, fe80::).
So maybe "only affect *on-link* BGP traffic"?
Good catch. Perhaps "intra on-link subnet BGP traffic" or something like
that? "link-local" should not be used as a term though, I agree that might
cause confusion.
Great work writing this down, hope more operators and IXPs implement these
procedures.
Also, do we know why still so few use BFD on IXPs? Since all other
mechanisms apart from BFD lacked consensus (there were L2 reporting
protocol proposals I remember from 10+ years back), it would be great if
BFD was actually deployed more.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
