> First, is the case of two I2RS clients modifying the same "thing" > something we consider normal and desirable, or is it an error. The earlier > discussions was that it is an error. In discussing the many different kinds of > direct and indirect collateral issues that arise, we concluded that we could > not expect the I2RS agent to be able to determine the "right" thing to do in > the general case.
So, assume the following -- 1. A local BGP process installs a route, 10.1.1.0/24 via 192.168.100.1 2. In order to move traffic off a "hot link" in a fabric, a client/controller installs a route, 10.1.1.0/24 via 192.168.200.1 3. An attack vector is detected in a flow destined to some host on 10.1.1.0/24 that causes a separate client/controller to install a route, 10.1.1.0/24 via 192.168.150.1 for five seconds If I were the operator who owned this network, I wouldn't call this an "error." I would call this "normal operation," -- in fact, the ability to do the above would be the very reason I would deploy I2RS on the network in the first place. Further, I would expect the entire process to unwind properly and _quickly_. I don't care how it happens, I just want the removal of the second client's route to leave the first client's in the table as the current route, and the removal of the first client's path leave the BGP route as the best path. To go farther, why are there client priorities at all if this is an "error?" If all overwrites of "ephemeral state" are an error, the agent should simply reject any attempt to overwrite any such state. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
