Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

if the rs injects it as, then traffic will be biased against rs paths randy ___ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

: grow@ietf.org; Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> Subject: Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful? On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:04:03PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > It's also common practice for transit providers to use a single ASN > spanning the globe e.g. 174, 291

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Hi, On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:14:13PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > yeah, but you know dealing with ixp participants is hard. IXPs are > firmly aimed at the mid- to low-end provider market, and often you're > dealing with people who just don't understand routing well or who don't > have time to

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Jeffrey Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:04:03PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> It's also common practice for transit providers to use a single ASN >> spanning the globe e.g. 174, 2914, 3356, etc. What you're describing >> here is an aspect of the fact that that as-pathlen has not been a

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:04:36AM +, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote: > Another thought - please correct me if I am talking rubbish as I have only > glanced at the RFCs... > > If the RS would insert itself as an aggregator with the leftmost AS in the > path: > The path would not become any longer

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

On Dec 19, Nick Hilliard wrote: > The reason that IXPs are disinclined to insert the rsasn in a route > server feed is that a route server attempts to replicate what you would > see if you had bilateral peering sessions to all other RS clients. If > the IXP operator inserts the

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

My 2 cents > From: Job Snijders > [...] > The AS_PATH attribute serves multiple functions: its length is used as a > tie-breaker in best path selection, and the contents of the AS_PATH > itself serves as an (mutable) track record on what administrative > domains the announcement passed

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:50:29AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:53:08AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > > Yes, route servers can be very useful, no question about it. I think > > their value as a service would increase if they become visible > > participants of the routing

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Hi, first a remark: At DE-CIX customers can choose if they want the RS AS in the path of the prefixes they receive from the RS or not (they need to send an email to support to change the config). Another thought - please correct me if I am talking rubbish as I have only glanced at the RFCs...

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Hi, On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:53:08AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > Yes, route servers can be very useful, no question about it. I think > their value as a service would increase if they become visible > participants of the routing ecosystem. Not sure about that. IXP participants know where the

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Hi, Feedback on suggested path changes from another operator: I imagine that in our case having *all* route-servers consistently add their ASN would not lead to too many path changes. The changes that we will see is that we will prefer direct peerings over route server prefixes because of

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Hi, On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:40:46AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > If you have the resourcing to deploy > proper automation, including dynamic filtering and session management, > then bilateral is better. To emphasize some aspect of this for the non-operators on this list: the technical bits

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Hi, On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:06:29AM +, heasley wrote: > Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 04:36:56PM +0100, Job Snijders: > > pressure to set up bilateral sessions. > > Is that negative? Why not encourage ASes to have direct relationships > and stop maintaining route servers? They should develop

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Jared Mauch wrote: > I know that Job has been pushing for the above, perhaps not in your view > but in the view of others here. definitely. It's been incredibly productive work, and his efforts have produced major results in terms of pushing IXPs towards filtering. This needs to be continued.

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 04:36:56PM +0100, Job Snijders: > pressure to set up bilateral sessions. Is that negative? Why not encourage ASes to have direct relationships and stop maintaining route servers? They should develop those relationships and it might even be suggested that security and

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

> On Dec 18, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Job Snijders wrote: >> You and Martijn appear to argue that the 'best path selection' >> component should not be fiddled with, which leaves me wondering >> whether we have any other methods to implement a track record

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Hi all, I'd like to share my support to Job's position, and the reason isn't only 'transparency' or filtering (while they are worth to fight for). I see as the core of the problem, that one ISP MUST add its AS Number in the AS_PATH and another ISP is permitted no to do it. Yes, one can tell me,

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Job Snijders wrote: > You and Martijn appear to argue that the 'best path selection' > component should not be fiddled with, which leaves me wondering > whether we have any other methods to implement a track record ala > 'this path announcement passed through RS AS XYZ' other than > communities.

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:32:13PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders wrote: > > I mentioned before, I suspect that the route server's lack of > > visiblity is a direct contributor to the reluctance to apply filters > > on route servers. > > Job, seriously, if you have helpful or useful

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Job Snijders wrote: > Right now some IXPs are using the IETF RFCs as a justification to not > hide their ASN in the AS_PATH - and unfortunately some of them gloss > over the recommendations to apply ingress filters. the two RS RFCs are split: one is a specification of what BGP must do, and the

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Dear Martijn, On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:23:29PM +0100, i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt wrote: > I disagree. The last thing we need is for IXPs to randomly begin > applying new "inject one's own ASN into AS_PATH" behaviour to their > routeservers Interesting use of the word 'randomly'! :) > -

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Job Snijders wrote: > It is common practise for route server operators to configure their > route server in such a way that the route server does not append its own > ASN to the AS_PATH attribute. Many IXPs view this practise as > justifiable because it gives them a competitive advantage over

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Dear Job, Fredrik, I disagree. The last thing we need is for IXPs to randomly begin applying new "inject one's own ASN into AS_PATH" behaviour to their routeservers - anything which deviates from the de-facto standard will result in a lot of time spent with IXPs working on migrating to the new

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Hi Nick, On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:04:03PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders wrote: > > After the gazillionth routing incident in which an IXP route server > > amplified the problem, I think it is time we explore mechanisms to > > improve accountability, auditability & make debugging

Re: [GROW] Route Server ASN stripping hiding considered harmful?

Job Snijders wrote: > After the gazillionth routing incident in which an IXP route server > amplified the problem, I think it is time we explore mechanisms to > improve accountability, auditability & make debugging easier. you missed the term "misconfigured" or "malconfigured" when describing the