On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 08:46:10AM +0000, Martijn Schmidt wrote:
> I see the following proposal, which I reckon references to
> de-aggregation oopsies by so-called "route optimizers":
>
> Jul 2020 - “Document negative consequences of de-aggregating received
> routes for traffic engineering purposes” - to IESG
>
> And that reminds me of something - what about the inverse where the
> originating ISP is overdoing their traffic engineering by selectively
> announcing de-aggregated routes alongside an overarching supernet?
> It's not a huge problem from a routing security perspective, but this
> is a major challenge in routing traffic locally outside
> well-established markets, especially when the ISP in question
> backhauls some (but not all) of their upstream providers over very
> long submarine paths.
Yes, the inverse can be an issue as well. We can add that as a
milestone! Perhaps:
"Document impact of selectively announcing de-aggregated routes in the
global routing system."
It could be helpful to come up with a fancy nickname for this type of
issue, in the spirit of how "BGP Wedgies" (RFC 4264) is a nice short
name for a complex issue.
Maybe "BGP Deaggregation Slopping" as a working title?
In any regard, will you take a lead to produce a draft? :)
Kind regards,
Job
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
