Hi Melchior, Thanks a lot for the feedback. Response inline below. Regards, Tim
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, 13:57 Melchior Aelmans, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Thanks for your feedback! Apologies for getting back so late to your > comments! > Some questions/responses in line below. > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Tim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1. Related with Considerations for soft thresholds >> >> Actually the behavior after reaching threshold include: >> >> Soft limit: >> >> 1) Alert only: Only alert triggered, neighbour is not impacted >> > > Agreed and widely implemented for inbound advertisements. It is > potentially useful as well outbound. > > >> 2) Alert + Stop receiving route: Alert triggered, no extra route accepted. >> > > I think if you apply this both inbound and outbound the result is useless > as it is arbitrary based on the order you advertise or receive routes in. > Do you agree? > > Hard limit: >> >> Tear down the session, either idle forever or reconnect after a period >> of time. >> > > How about if you allow the session to come back up and advertisements are > blocked until you are sure the queue doesn't contain too many routes? > [Tim]: the device must clear all buffers before trying to reconnect. > 2. Generally to protect network from impact of route leaking, based on >> my experience only relying on prefix limit mechanism is not enough. >> Reason include: >> >> 1) Prefix limit is usually neighbor basis, while route leaking could >> happen on multiple neighbors together. >> > > Agreed. Max prefix out should be made available on global, group and > neighbour level. > I would propose to cover this in the "Implementation Guidance" section. > > >> 2) Consideration also need include devices on POP that receive all >> internet routes from internet gateway via RR. Such devices could hold >> multiple services not only just BGP. >> >> In such case, either a BGP process based or global based memory&CPU >> protection mechanism is needed. >> > > What do you propose? I don't see how prefix limits could play a role here? > [Tim] No. It rely on a global based memory protection of the os system. Let's keep it out of this document so far. > > 3. There is one more case need to consider is that a device could be >> able to receive BGP prefix and add in RIB even, but when it send the >> route to other neighbors, especially when number of neighbors is large. >> >> update package group could help in such scenario, but still all msgs >> need to be sent to TCP socket that will consume extra memory after all >> route already received, >> >> There are some implementations already so far (at least IOS XR supports >> bgp write-limit) to limit the msgs speed sent to update group to remit >> impact of this. >> >> Overall, it depends on intention of this draft, it is to define pre & >> post policy on prefix limit or provide a practical solution for route >> leaking. >> >> If the intention is the latter one, I would say we could be more work to >> do. If is the previous one, I would say no objection on current scope. >> > > I would suggest to keep the scope limited for now and agree there's more > work to be done in this space...for another draft :) > [Tim] Agree. > > >> 4. It may be useful to describe advantages of type B >> >> In case of a neighbor send illegal routes (e.g. rfc 6598), such routes >> are not accepted (filtered by policy) and not calculated, it won't lead >> to reset of a BGP neighbor mistakenly. >> > > Agreed that it is a good example. > > 5. In the last, related with Implementation status: >> >> I can provide implementation status on Huawei devices: >> > > Great, thanks! Will accumulate that into the draft. > > Finally thanks for the draft again. >> > > You are welcome. Feel free to add additional comments. > > Thanks! > Melchior >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
